politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I used to be lukewarm on the issue of gun control, ya know.. "Yes, it's a tragedy.. but, we've got a second amendment, just increase security in schools or something."
But... eventually it got to the point where I realized I felt nothing hearing about the dead kids and the constant shootings. I was just completely numb to it, and that's when I realized "Oh shit..."
When I found that the death of children wasn't something that even made me flinch anymore, I realized.... That even if we have to destroy every gun in the West, something has to be done.
"They'll just use knives"
And when you can kill as many people with a knife in as short of a time as an AR-15, that's when I'll give a shit about knives.
PS: I totally call it the Assault Rifle 15. I know it's the "Arma Rite 15" or whatever, but it pisses conservatives off when I get it wrong intentionally.
It's really fun to call it an "assault weapon". That pops them off to an astonishing degree.
Which very clearly states itself as being relevant to citizen militias, and somehow says nothing about a fundamental right to murder children in large numbers.
I actually does if you know the historical subtext. Militias weren't actually considered a significant check on federal power, they were encouraged so slave states could put down slave rebellions and frontier areas could gradually conquer land from the natives.
It was specifically written at a time when all states' militias combined totaled about 500,000 men and it was being proposed to limit the federal troops to 16,000 men. So it most certainly would have been a significant check on federal power.
And they had just got done fighting a war where the militias were basically useless, except for the Swamp Fox, who used them in the only way they can be effective, as terrorists.
The actual war plans were always to turn militia into regulars, as seen in the Civil War when you had a similar situation.
Exactly. It was Written CENTURIES ago so we NEED to talk about it in Context! But ALSO they TOTALLY were Referring to Weapons we have TODAY!
Knives are easier to defend. That's why the gun was made. If it didn't make warfare cheaper and quicker, they would have stayed with knives and swords.
I'm torn on this issue. I want the sort of gun control that you're describing, but I really don't know if it would be constitutional, and defying the constitution is a slippery slope that could cause more harm than even gun violence. The problem in my view is the second amendment itself - it's vague, outdated, and in desperate need of clarification. The fact that it deals with possession of technology but hasn't been updated in 250 years is insane.
I'm with anyone calling for gun control, but we really ought to be demanding constitutional revision to address this issue.
One thing that really made it hit for me was when Australia had a mass knifing so bad the fucking pope commented on it and the numbers felt low for it to be such a tragedy of violence. It felt like it wouldn’t hit the state level news in America with a gun.
But also you were lukewarm and other people are now because someone who is making millions and is spending millions on lobbying so that children continue to be killed so that they keep making millions. Even though the additional millions they'll make won't change their net worth by any significant amount...