• KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    205
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    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:

    1. Come out against AR-15s, for obvious reasons. This makes gun nuts less likely to vote for him.

    2. Come out in favor of AR-15s. He looks insane to Republicans who don’t care about guns.

    3. 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.

        • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          5 months ago

          Is that enough to matter? And is this issue enough for them to change their vote, given the tax stuff? All the other shit Trump does certainly doesn’t matter.

          • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The richest places in America are pretty solidly blue. A lot of rich people like good public schools and colleges, clean water, the arts, etc. and understand that taxes and charity are how those things are paid for.

            Other rich people like gated communities and stopped reading books1 when someone stopped assigning them. They’re the Republican rich people.

            1 Some will read a book about war or some shitty airport bookstore thing that’s 80% out-of-context quotes about how to be a leader.

            • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              5 months ago

              Rich people don’t give a fuck about public schools, lmao, they send their kids to private ones.

              • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Private schools often suck. Rich people aren’t smarter. They just have more money. There’s plenty of districts where the best public high school is way better than whatever private schools exist. Half the private schools are for weird religious groups or kids who got expelled.

                There’s almost always good public schools in cities. That’s why there’s always loopholes that allow rich people’s kids to go to them.

                And in colleges, Harvard isn’t better than UC-Berkeley or the honors programs at most state flagship institutions. It’s just older. (There have been studies that compared students who got into an Ivy League school and ultimately chose a public flagship and the Ivy grads only did better in the first few years after graduation. But then the public flagship attendees caught up.)

            • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I wonder how many of those hedge fund billionaires down on Wall Street are Democrats. I doubt that it’s many of them. Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.

              They all like tax cuts and deregulation. Trump is the one who’s promising that, whereas Biden promised and already delivered more of both to them all.

              • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                I don’t have any desire to defend hedge fund or VC billionaires so I’ll concede the point. There’s a reason San Francisco has NIMBY policies and New York City can’t elect mayors for shit.

                • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah, because the people who own all of the businesses and real estate constantly battle those who work at the businesses and live in all that real estate, which just goes to show what a fucked up and unbalanced role money plays in our so-called democracy.

              • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.

                Now you’re just making things up. You can’t just say “nah, not likely” and prove anything. It’s a lack of effort that shows you don’t have evidence.

                NYC is a “blue city” (whatever that means) because of these professionals. The actual working class people in NYC make up a lot of the conservatives. That’s why cities are more liberal: because they have more educated people. Those people work in banking or media; they’re not all artists or plumbers or something.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            At this point Donald Trump could build a shrine to and start worshipping Obama as a God… It won’t affect anything.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          And the ones that are Republicans to fuck over everyone but the rich. They’d definitely prefer “poor folk” didn’t have guns at all.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Lots of them. Do you know any Republicans? None of them care about issues that don’t affect them and their families. Even other “conservative” issues. They are not driven by policy.

        Only Republicans with guns care about guns. And only 50% of Republicans have guns.

        https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

        They don’t care about each other. Liberals care about what other liberals think. Stop thinking like someone who cares about policy.

        • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I’ve had to explain this to a lot of people who naturally assume that any organization of people will be organized around some kind of shared values. Most of the time that’s true, but not for Republicans.

          Republicans are just a mish mash of obsessive single-issue voters, and by in large they just don’t care about the other single issues that their fellow party members are going on about.

          At the head of the Republican party it’s people who want to minimize their tax burden, eliminate regulations on corporations, and cannibalize as much of the US government as they can into for-profit institutions. You could say that’s three issues instead of one, but the overarching theme is to cater to personal greed, no matter the harm to society. These are the ones who are primarily pulling the strings in the party, at least historically.

          Just below them is the military industrial complex and gun manufacturers who just want to sell guns no matter the harm to society. They like to rile up 2A fanatics with conspiracy theories that the government is out to steal all their guns so they’ll be defenseless, paving the way for King Biden to ascend to his throne. The industry only cares about selling guns and the fanatics only care about having guns, and neither care about any kind of harm to society.

          Then there’s the radical Christians whose obsessions cover an eclectic mix of social reactionary positions and literal death cult worship (e.g. Christians who give absolute support to genocide in Palestine because they think Israel’s conquest is a crucial step towards the rapture, which they believe is imminent). Broadly speaking the people in this group just want to hoist their religious doctrines onto everyone they can by any means available and no matter the harm it causes to society. They literally only care about “God’s Kingdom” in the afterlife.

          Then there’s people who just lack any capacity for adaptation or learning. Their obsession is to feel like things are staying the same, or even reverting back to a past that they only know how to view through rose tinted glasses. They can’t be bothered to comprehend the problems we’re facing as a society or how the past was not the idyllic utopia that they mistakenly remember, nor can the old way of doing things sustain a growing and transforming society. These people just want to exist in comforting ignorance by feeling like they get to remain in familiar surroundings, no matter the harm to society.

          There’s really only one thing that truly unites them: Each one wants one specific thing no matter the harm to society, and that one specific thing that they each want IS HARMFUL to society. But they work well together because none of them care about the harm being caused by any of the others, and as long as they all tow the same line, each one gets what they want.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’ve never met any Republicans that were pro-gun-bans. I really don’t believe you’ll be able to find a single one either.

          This is dumb as fuck timing by Biden, but I’m sure he can’t help himself because he’s been super anti-gun for decades so it’s probably just like a reflex at this point for him to to off about banning guns after a shooting.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        How many of them will stay home or change their vote because the head of the party they’re still a part of despite all the gun nuts continues acting like a gun nut?

        If Biden is trying to use guns as a wedge issue for Republicans, he’s the person we saw at the debate all the time.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The ones that are antiabortion or evangelicals who don’t own guns. GOP has the most gun owners but its not even like half their voters. Vocal minorities is all it is.

        The only issue the GOP is actually united on right now is how they don’t like democrats.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.

        • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Presumably, “good” in most situations, with extensibility for specialized configurations that are both common and accessible.

        • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, it’s like the jeep or old chevy pickup of guns. Does whatever you need well enough you don’t need 5 guns.

            • rekorse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              5 months ago

              Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.

              There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.

              • Freefall@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                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

                • rekorse@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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.

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s good for shooting small, very fast bullets. May that be hunting, target shooting or self-defense.

          If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous. The would-be assassin could have done the same thing with a whole assortment of mostly equivalently performing rifles. Some just as “scary looking” black rifles, some with wooden parts.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            5 months ago

            If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous.

            And if they ban all those guns they should finish the job while they’re at it and just ban guns, glad we agree.

            • ours@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Indeed, they would have to go down the route Australia went. But I don’t see this happening in America any time soon.

              If piles of murdered kids didn’t do much to move the needle, shooting an inflammatory politician isn’t going to do it. We’ll see how the MAGA respond to this event or hopefully when they lose the elections. Maybe (but hopefully not) they’ll act violently enough to force facing America’s relationship with guns.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.

      and that is what’s gonna get him. because up until now, he looked soooo presidential 😂

    • Fester@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      5 months ago

      Any of those options will work fine for Trump. He doesn’t need to have policies, strategies, or responses to anything. His voters can’t remember it anyway. You think they remember that he banned bump stocks in the first place? He could promise to ban AR-15s one day, then criticize his own proposal the next day, and he’ll just get cheered by both sides. Voters are fucking stupid.

      All that matters is that he keeps the steady supply of hateful buzzwords flowing. You can’t win chess against an opponent who’s playing hungry hungry hippos.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        All of that wastes trump’s time and makes him look unprofessional to swing voters. He can’t win with just his fans. That’s why he lost big time in 2020. The swing voters saw him failing to respond to an actual issue.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Correction: He lost big time because of mail-in votes. Trump in 2020 got the record high for votes for a Republican candidate at something like 67.2 million, which was just about a million votes less than what Obama got during his first election (which was a record-breaking turnout). Biden got around 80 million votes in 2020, breaking every voter turnout record ever.

          Swing voters are still crucial because that’s how Hillary lost despite having only 100,000 less votes than Obama did in his second election, but I feel like swing voters have probably more or less already made up their minds. If you don’t see Trump for what he is already, the odds of his reaction here being the final straw seems unlikely. I think if people had better access to voting, we’d easily see a repeat of 2020 even if we were to vote right this minute.

    • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trump already said he’d take away everyones guns, no questions asked, years ago. No one that supported him even blinked. This means nothing to them.

      • Elsie@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m pretty sure the NRA had a heart attack when they heard that 🤣

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s just bullshit, he did not. He said the one stupid thing about ignoring due process for red flag law situations. This is pretty far and away from “everyone’s guns”

        • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          You made me curious, thank you. The actual quote is “take the guns first, go through due process second.”

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trump will go with number 5: “Did you know socialist immigrant windmills causing cancers kill more Americans than guns?”

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      He will do #2, and his base will cheer. Not a single person from that camp will think he’s crazy.

      This is the kind of Democrat logic that makes me cringe…

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      He can just say nothing. His position is already clear and he just selected a VP candidate who was pictured in social media with an AR15 recently, and openly suggested the ATF doesn’t need to exist.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      Or… he just doesn’t want to get shot himself. Just saying. not wanting to get shot is a powerful motivator…

      Not that it’s perhaps prudent. or you know, god forbid, actually a good fucking idea.

    • natebluehooves@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Option 4: trump and the GOP in general still views his assassination attempt as the danger you have to live with to live in a “free nation”. It’s the cost of freedom. Something something “just because i got shot doesn’t mean taking everyone’s rights away is a good idea”

      Growing up in texas, this is a very common view.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Admittedly, knowing the coward Trump is (He literally doesn’t order his own food because he’s afraid of poisoning) There’s a very slim chance Trump will declare the AR-15 is evil and act afraid of it.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I guarantee that he will say that the attack wouldn’t have happened if more of his followers had ar 15s there

    • wia@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      2 and 3 only matter if reality matters to you. Most people being trump don’t care how insane things look, or if trump “looks presidential”.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      What you’re arguing would make sense with logical voters. So of course it doesn’t apply here. When have Republican voters marked ‘D’ or stayed home instead of voting for a pro-gun candidate!? It just doesn’t happen.

      And “wedge” issue?? Come on, Republican voters are either all-in on Trump or they reluctantly mark the ‘R’…

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’ll be 2 because the Republicans who don’t like guns are a minority. It’s a cult, there’s nothing Trump can do to lose support. You can’t trick him into doing something stupid, he’s always doing something stupid, people clap for it anyway.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • swim@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        What do you mean, it was an AR-15. I don’t support a ban, just clarifying facts.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my statement. When I said “the sniper that killed the guy” I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn’t referring to Crooks.

          Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn’t using an AR. Not the guy who failed.

          • swim@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ah ok, I get you, then. I didn’t downvote your comment.

            Guns are tools. And what’s more, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You sure about that?

        FBI special agent in charge Kevin Rojek said Crooks used an AR-style rifle chambered in 5.56mm, a common caliber for such weapons. Authorities said the weapon was identified and traced using records from a gun dealership that is no longer operating.

        If that source doesnt work for you, here’s the president of the United states:

        “An AR-15 was used in the shooting of Donald Trump, just as other assault weapons were used to kill so many others, including children."

        That’s from the linked article.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my statement. When I said “the sniper that killed the guy” I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn’t referring to Crooks.

          Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn’t using an AR. Not the guy who failed.

          • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            So youre saying that since the wannabe assassin missed, that ARs are not effective weapons?

            Even if you gloss over the all the heavily published mass murder events committed with AR that the president alluded to in the quote above, are you aware that Trump turned his head a split second before the bullet hit his ear? That this likely is the only reason he’s alive?

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m saying that AR’s aren’t a requirement or a need for a shooter and that stopping sales of AR’s just means that something else will be used. You don’t need an AR.

  • kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • rayyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

      • Jackfinished@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

      • Psythik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      The next would be assasin will be forced to use a weapon appropriate for distance killing. They would be more likely to succeed.

      • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        The failed Trump shooter used a rifle completely appropriate for the distance. He was just a “comically bad” shooter, according to acquaintances.

    • Drusas@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • chingadera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      He’s not gonna do shit, he’s just gonna continue to bark at one of the symptoms of the problem.

  • Kiernian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

  • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Delta_V@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        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

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      I said this decades ago… if Dems dropped the gun shit and embraced safe shooting sports, they would win every damn election.

      • AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        Gun rights are a MAJOR factor in why many people I personally know refuse to consider voting Democrat.

        They will wax poetic all day about how much they detest Trump… but then end with, “At least he won’t take away our guns.”

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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…

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        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

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        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”.

  • npz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        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…

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The AK is a global weapon for sure. My commentary deals with the popularity of US gun platforms because that’s the country whose laws we’re talking about. So the global popularity of the AK isn’t really directly relevant.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well sure, but the reason I brought it up is that I’m not entirely certain that the AK or M-16 aren’t more owned in the US than the AR. AR has only been standard issue for the military since after I got out in 2004. I would wager there are far more AKs and M-16s in private hands than ARs

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              You’d be wrong. The AR platform is the civilian version of the M-16/M-4. And the flat-top carbine length version of the M16A4, called the M4, was standard issue for infantry units being deployed since at least 1999. They were increasingly being sold to civilians in semi-auto only configurations right up to the 1994 Assault weapons ban that named them specifically. That just resulted in a bunch of AR platforms with different names that narrowly skirted the rules of the ban, called “Compliant ARs”. After 2004, when the ban expired, sales of AR’s seem to take off because now they can sell freely under the AR name that got a ton of publicity. And now in 2024 they’re going to start selling the AR platform in Sig’s new 6.8mm flavor. To be fair the Spear itself is different enough it some people may not considerate it an Armalite platform. Other would argue it’s an AR-16 platform.

            • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              The M-16 and AR-15 are the same gun barring the full auto mechanism. Armalite originally made the AR-15, sold it to Colt, who pitched it to the military, and when it was adopted, was designated the M-16. (Simplified history) So while it may not have been standard issue as the AR, it’s been around for a very long time. Obviously it’s changed up a little over time as manufacturing has changed hands, but I’m not sure if it’s worth debating what’s in private hands other than how they’re designated when they’re essentially variants of the same gun.

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Gotcha, they didn’t exactly go into the manufacturing history in boot when they trained us on how to use the thing, and I have had exactly 0 reasons to touch a firearm since boot.

    • commandar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can think of literally no better reason to keep ARs legal than the events of last week.

    • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government. If the rise of fascism in America isn’t the time to use it, it’s meaningless.

      The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check. That ship has sailed, so it already lost a lot of its bite, but any power it still has can only be justified for that purpose

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government

        Nope. Judging by how they used militias at the time, they meant it for defending the federal government against both invasions and rebellions. The “defense against tyranny” reason is just an invention of people trying to justify their guns.

        The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check

        Nope. There WAS no federal army at the time. They used militias IN STEAD OF a standing army, not as a check on an existing one. Which of course invalidates the entire amendment now that the country has the biggest and most advanced military in the history of humanity.


        All of that being said, I consider assassination of a tyrant you can’t rid the people of in any other way the only form of murder that’s acceptable as it serves the common good.

        Putin is one such tyrant, Orban probably is, and Donald Trump DEFINITELY is. The world would have been a much better place if Crooks had been a better shot.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said. We don’t have to speculate what the founders intended, they wrote it down. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s ask Alexander Hamilton from federalist 29

          If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said

            The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it’s for the security of the nation and doesn’t mention tyranny at all.

            Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.

            • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.

              I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn’t agree on everything.

                The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.

                The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.

                You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦

                • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.

                  The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.

                  You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦

                  Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.

          • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            1 in 5 Americans score adequately high enough in their spacial reasoning to qualify for an M32 or M320 credit. The M203 will only be available on surplus legacy rifle systems via lottery.

  • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    5 months ago

    Braindead take, is Biden gonna come to my rescue when some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch?

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It’s very disturbing from a European point of view.

      • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.

          • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.

            • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              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… 😆

              • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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.

                • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  then tried to walk it back

                  i couldn’t have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:

                  1. i am not the person you originally replied to.

                  and

                  1. 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.

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.

              • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ah, didn’t know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Soon to be “our”. And not just in America, unfortunately.

      • PepperoniNipple@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Ours are already. You pay us, mexicans, 16x times less the salary of an american citizen (for the same product, quality, service, time and efficiency) just for being mexican. A lot of us are dying out of poverty, violence is increasing and so on. We could’ve used that extra flow of income to lift the country up, but you preferred to keep us bent over in a ditch.

        This form of racism and assholery, I have personally experienced it a lot with christofascists and republicans. They think they are the shit, the best, above everyone else, their ego is so fucking inflated, their patriotism too and so is their greed.

        Yeah dude, that life is already here and it’s touching your ankles already. Look at all those drugs addicts and young people with no homes in your country. You consider them a pest, annoying, disgusting, a nuisance, but they are your children lol, your people. Your lack of humanity is what creates and inspires people like our local narcos to poison you with fentanyl and more. Thank you, dude, for being so evil, for not having the empathy to think or imagine what’s it like for those that are so close to you. Maybe someday you or your children will taste it too, I hope.

        • chingadera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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

        • 🐍🩶🐢@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          do you plan to resolve any of your problems, real or perceived, with ar15?

  • Delta_V@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    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