5 ms·

Most of us don't understand it either. The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act. And even if they did,

Most of us don't understand it either. The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act. And even if they did, it seems like the supreme court has decided to interpret the 2nd amendment in such an obtuse manner that any reform at all would likely be unconstitutional.

dingnuts 1y ago
I can explain it in one sentence. I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with guns in this country.
- yfw 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - brendoelfrendo 1y ago
    I don’t mean to be snarky or insensitive, but it is really ironic to ask that question in a thread discussing the assassination of a far-right political figure.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - delecti 1y ago
      I agree with your point, but lets not get ahead of ourselves; it's currently only an attempted assassination.
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      Hahaha. You're right, that is a funny context.
- Sparkle-san 1y ago
  That doesn't preclude things with bipartisan support like: - uniform background checks including private purchase - waiting periods - red flag laws - raising the age to 21
- Flere-Imsaho 1y ago
  > I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with guns in this country. How about: "I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with tanks in this country." Are you going to buy some tanks? How about F35s?
  - objektif 1y ago
    I would have agreed with you but look at what is happening in some Asian countries right now. Imagine a situation where the thugs knock on your door with their guns. I will probably never own guns but there is an argument to make.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      When those thugs show up at your door with all of the weapons drawn and at the ready, what do you think you and your little hand gun or even riffle are going to do? Wound the first person at the door before you get lit up? To what purpose?
- swarnie 1y ago
  They can nuke you from orbit with the click of a button, nothing you can acquire legal or otherwise can prevent that if they so wish.
  - Sparkle-san 1y ago
    I mean, don't color me surprised if a civilian uses a drone to commit an act of violence in the future. We're on the precipice of autonomous drone assassinations.
  - skellington 1y ago
    I know you're just willfully dumb, but other people reading might think you actually have a point. No army in the world including the US could stop a civilian uprising of even a million people who have just rifles and the will to fight. They don't need nukes, tanks, or airplanes. If a large enough percentage of people, say 2% of the population, decided to fight a civil war, the US army/gov would fall in a few months if the rebels knew what they were doing. It would be a guerilla war. And all of the critical infrastructure in the US could be destroyed in a month. No gas. No electricity. Smaller uprisings would be easily squashed. Now, would this ever happen? Unlikely. Americans can barely get their fat asses out of bed much less do military operations for weeks at a time. Things would have to get incredibly bad and a leader would have to organize it. But it is possible.
    - alchemical_piss 1y ago
      My problem with this thought is that a civil war = government forces vs cilivilan militias. I imagine it more a weakened government (but still with a functioning military) supported by civilian militias backing the government, versus various large and small insurgencies possibly with foreign backing.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    I take it they'll use a nuke to get this shooter then? No? They'll use it on the next one then? No? The US practially isn't going to use nukes on the US. Its practically not going to use nukes on pretty much anyone.
- lazide 1y ago
  You know they quite literally have the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, yes?
  - ilkhan4 1y ago
    This argument is always kind of silly to me. You really think they'd use a weapon of mass destruction just to take out a few people they don't like? On their home soil? I mean, I find myself being surprised by Trump daily, but still... It's far more likely that they'd use more surgical means, like the ICE raids, to root out people they don't like. In that case, I'd say being armed would make at least somewhat of a difference, or at least give pause. Some guys with AK-47s kept the world's most powerful military pretty busy for 20 years, so I wouldn't underestimate the value of a few rifles against authoritarianism.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Do you think they’d bother shooting anyone themselves? Either of these situations are going to be stochastic and with difficult attribution. And don’t forget - they want a degree of unhinged shooting back, it feeds the authoritarian tendencies and ‘justifies’ the increasingly unhinged violent responses.
iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
[flagged]
- Sparkle-san 1y ago
  The only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
    Is it when it does or when it does not benefit your particular position on whatever issue? I am not being difficult, I am tryign to understand your frame of mind. It is possible you are already too far gone.
    - Sparkle-san 1y ago
      It's when the minority functionally has more rights/say in things than the majority. Take the electoral college for instance, I consider the fact that you could win an election with only 23% of the population voting for you makes it fundamentally flawed and should be removed. The same can be said for how we distribute seats in the senate and house. The difference in population between the largest and smallest state when the constitution was ratified was around 12x. It's now 70x and I consider that to be unacceptable in terms of weight of power wielded by those smaller states.
      - iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
        Interesting. If you know how this country was created, you likely know why senate looks the way it looks and why house looks the way it looks. If you are suggesting update, it is well within your rights to argue for that change. However, there are enough people, who think it is important to keep senate seats limited. I obviously disagree with you on civics, but what would you suggest? I already think there is way too much concentrated power ( I absolutely do not want it ruled by biggest available mob per given state ), but I think we disagree over why. Can you tell me why that is?
  - 1y ago
nomel 1y ago
> Most of us don't understand it either. No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]: > Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons? > 2024 Oct 1-12: Yes: 20% No: 79% No opinion: 1% Your next sentence > The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act. is somewhat true, at 56%. But, this question involves things like more restrictions for those with mental illness, criminal backgrounds, etc. Any conclusion about this question must understand how broad it is, and have the 79% support of gun ownership, above, in mind. See the rest of the results for a more wholistic perspective. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
- Sparkle-san 1y ago
  > No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]: > But this is true, at 56%, with caveats Yeah, that's why I said some degree of control instead of "a majority supports completely banning handguns".

dingnuts 1y ago

I can explain it in one sentence. I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with guns in this country.

yfw 1y ago
[flagged]
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  I don’t mean to be snarky or insensitive, but it is really ironic to ask that question in a thread discussing the assassination of a far-right political figure.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - delecti 1y ago
    I agree with your point, but lets not get ahead of ourselves; it's currently only an attempted assassination.
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    Hahaha. You're right, that is a funny context.
Sparkle-san 1y ago
That doesn't preclude things with bipartisan support like: - uniform background checks including private purchase - waiting periods - red flag laws - raising the age to 21
Flere-Imsaho 1y ago
> I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with guns in this country. How about: "I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with tanks in this country." Are you going to buy some tanks? How about F35s?
- objektif 1y ago
  I would have agreed with you but look at what is happening in some Asian countries right now. Imagine a situation where the thugs knock on your door with their guns. I will probably never own guns but there is an argument to make.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    When those thugs show up at your door with all of the weapons drawn and at the ready, what do you think you and your little hand gun or even riffle are going to do? Wound the first person at the door before you get lit up? To what purpose?
swarnie 1y ago
They can nuke you from orbit with the click of a button, nothing you can acquire legal or otherwise can prevent that if they so wish.
- Sparkle-san 1y ago
  I mean, don't color me surprised if a civilian uses a drone to commit an act of violence in the future. We're on the precipice of autonomous drone assassinations.
- skellington 1y ago
  I know you're just willfully dumb, but other people reading might think you actually have a point. No army in the world including the US could stop a civilian uprising of even a million people who have just rifles and the will to fight. They don't need nukes, tanks, or airplanes. If a large enough percentage of people, say 2% of the population, decided to fight a civil war, the US army/gov would fall in a few months if the rebels knew what they were doing. It would be a guerilla war. And all of the critical infrastructure in the US could be destroyed in a month. No gas. No electricity. Smaller uprisings would be easily squashed. Now, would this ever happen? Unlikely. Americans can barely get their fat asses out of bed much less do military operations for weeks at a time. Things would have to get incredibly bad and a leader would have to organize it. But it is possible.
  - alchemical_piss 1y ago
    My problem with this thought is that a civil war = government forces vs cilivilan militias. I imagine it more a weakened government (but still with a functioning military) supported by civilian militias backing the government, versus various large and small insurgencies possibly with foreign backing.
- vel0city 1y ago
  I take it they'll use a nuke to get this shooter then? No? They'll use it on the next one then? No? The US practially isn't going to use nukes on the US. Its practically not going to use nukes on pretty much anyone.
lazide 1y ago
You know they quite literally have the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, yes?
- ilkhan4 1y ago
  This argument is always kind of silly to me. You really think they'd use a weapon of mass destruction just to take out a few people they don't like? On their home soil? I mean, I find myself being surprised by Trump daily, but still... It's far more likely that they'd use more surgical means, like the ICE raids, to root out people they don't like. In that case, I'd say being armed would make at least somewhat of a difference, or at least give pause. Some guys with AK-47s kept the world's most powerful military pretty busy for 20 years, so I wouldn't underestimate the value of a few rifles against authoritarianism.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Do you think they’d bother shooting anyone themselves? Either of these situations are going to be stochastic and with difficult attribution. And don’t forget - they want a degree of unhinged shooting back, it feeds the authoritarian tendencies and ‘justifies’ the increasingly unhinged violent responses.

iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago

[flagged]

Sparkle-san 1y ago
The only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority.
- iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
  Is it when it does or when it does not benefit your particular position on whatever issue? I am not being difficult, I am tryign to understand your frame of mind. It is possible you are already too far gone.
  - Sparkle-san 1y ago
    It's when the minority functionally has more rights/say in things than the majority. Take the electoral college for instance, I consider the fact that you could win an election with only 23% of the population voting for you makes it fundamentally flawed and should be removed. The same can be said for how we distribute seats in the senate and house. The difference in population between the largest and smallest state when the constitution was ratified was around 12x. It's now 70x and I consider that to be unacceptable in terms of weight of power wielded by those smaller states.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
      Interesting. If you know how this country was created, you likely know why senate looks the way it looks and why house looks the way it looks. If you are suggesting update, it is well within your rights to argue for that change. However, there are enough people, who think it is important to keep senate seats limited. I obviously disagree with you on civics, but what would you suggest? I already think there is way too much concentrated power ( I absolutely do not want it ruled by biggest available mob per given state ), but I think we disagree over why. Can you tell me why that is?
- 1y ago

nomel 1y ago

> Most of us don't understand it either. No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]: > Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons? > 2024 Oct 1-12: Yes: 20% No: 79% No opinion: 1% Your next sentence > The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act. is somewhat true, at 56%. But, this question involves things like more restrictions for those with mental illness, criminal backgrounds, etc. Any conclusion about this question must understand how broad it is, and have the 79% support of gun ownership, above, in mind. See the rest of the results for a more wholistic perspective. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Sparkle-san 1y ago
> No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]: > But this is true, at 56%, with caveats Yeah, that's why I said some degree of control instead of "a majority supports completely banning handguns".