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 ?
The AR isnt special. So why are they going after ARs specifically?
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.
Biden is doing this to drive a wedge into Republicans. The gun nuts and the ones that don’t care about guns will have differing opinions because now gun violence affects them directly. It’s really smart.
Biden looks presidential. Trump has three choices:
-
Come out against AR-15s, for obvious reasons. This makes gun nuts less likely to vote for him.
-
Come out in favor of AR-15s. He looks insane to Republicans who don’t care about guns.
-
Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.
Number 3 is most likely. Of course the correct answer is number 4: propose a competing policy that is nuanced. But that’s impossible for trump.
Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.
utilitarian platform
What does that mean?
Narrator: its a made up phrase
No, it’s like the jeep or old chevy pickup of guns. Does whatever you need well enough you don’t need 5 guns.
Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.
There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.
My closest friend (a smaller woman) is only alive because she carries, so I know there is merit. Your comments are as stupid as “why have a smoke detector, how many times has your house burnt down? And don’t get me started on seatbelts!” It isn’t even living in fear. There are a lot of merit to gun regulation and nobody needs to be open carrying an assault rifle, and yes we all know what that term means, come at me with “tHAt iSnT a gUN drrrr”. I could make a case for it in home protection …but I am biased, having trained with an M-4, but even there, regulated ownership is fine…like driving a car.
/WastingBreath
Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I’m sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
I’m willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I’ll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
I’m very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
That’s just dumb, bud.
The AR platform is highly customizable for different chamberings, sizes, attachments etc.
People who are “into guns” usually have at least one pistol or rifle that is built on the AR platform. ARs are great for everything from target shooting as well as hunting. Very practical.
It’s just dumb. The sniper that killed the guy wasn’t using an ar-15. Stopping ar-15’s wouldn’t have done anything to change something like this.
-
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Thanks Biden, guess I have some shopping to do before prices go up.
I buy stock when these things happen and sell when it cools down. You folks pay me a TON. Thanks!
God bless capitalism <3
Anyone looking to ban weapons must not believe Jan 6th was a genuine insurrection.
Why, oh why, would you disarm the people and give the state a monopoly on violence when that state is teetering on the edge of fascism.
Maybe because
A) The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15’s fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just… Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
B) most of those weapons are used by the very people supporting a fascist government. All these “government evil!” types are dumb as fuck and voting for Trump.
C) AR15 weapons have been used (and continue to be used damn near weekly) in mass shootings that has killed hundreds of children.
Americans have shown one thing for sure: they can’t be trusted to use weapons safely, securely and responsibly. If you can’t take care of your toys (because thats what they are for most people, big boy toys) we take your toys away.
Take a single look at any other western country and you’ll find that (barring perhaps Switzerland, where they are extremely responsible with laws and culture) they all van weapons and this shit simply. doesn’t. happen. How? There are no mass murder weapons freely available.
The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15’s fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just… Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
Remember the middle east? Remember vietnam? A bunch of poverty stricken farmers kicked our asses. And with a US rebellion, you can bet theres going to be at least a few traitors in the military
The Iraqi insurgency was run by ex -Baath party members who used to run and be the army when GW dismissed them to “nation build.”. They went home and took their weapons with them. However, many, many died. They were also supported by Iran.
The rest, as they say, is history.
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.
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.
