this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
368 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3226 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday.

Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines.

“This bill would stop the sale of weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Helmer said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PoliticalAgitator -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

As for magazine size, I like to have a higher capacity for more fun at the range.

Many countries that the pro-gun community insists have "banned guns" will let you go to a range, unlicensed, and fire basically anything the range offers.

Meanwhile in America, scoping gun laws to reasonable use is staunchly opposed. We're supposed to accept that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity accessories are going to be sold to domestic terrorists and idiots, so people can "have fun at the range".

Not only is that deeply fucked in the head, it's not even necessary.

I have never met anyone with this permit.

What a strange coincidence, I've never heard of these weapons being used in a mass shooting or gang crime, despite the pro-gun community insisting that regulations don't work.

[–] SendMePhotos 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Not necessary is not a good reason to not have something. Cars don't need to go 100mph, clothes don't need to have colors, Highly flavored foods are not necessary and actually may harm people with the preservatives and whatever else may be in the food. You're doing the same thing that conservatives do with border patrol reasons. "they could be terrorists and rapists. Not everyone who owns guns is a murderer, just like not every person crossing the border is a terrorist.

[–] PoliticalAgitator 0 points 9 months ago

Cars don't need to go 100mph

Cars are subjected to licensing and safety regulations that are being constantly changed. Heavy vehicles will soon include mandatory ECU speed limiters to address exactly this. As far as I'm aware, drivers haven't been parading around making flowery death threats over it.

Highly flavored foods are not necessary and actually may harm people with the preservatives and whatever else may be in the food.

The FTC has had principles for marketing junk food to children for almost a decade and harmful additives are routinely banned. As far as I'm aware, children haven't been parading around making flowery death threats over it.

You're doing the same thing that conservatives do with border patrol reasons. "they could be terrorists and rapists

Which is why legal immigration processes scrutinize character and intent and can be revoked at any time.

All your "but other things are dangerous" list does is demonstrate that gun laws aren't held to the standard as any every other public risk.

[–] Fades 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We’re supposed to accept that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity accessories are going to be sold to domestic terrorists and idiots, so people can “have fun at the range”.

could you be anymore reductive with this statement?

Not only is that deeply fucked in the head, it’s not even necessary.

yes, smack down that strawman argument you just propped up!!

[–] PoliticalAgitator -1 points 9 months ago

I know you want to clean up after him and pretend there's some noble use for high capacity, semi-automatic weapons but it's literally the reason he gave for owning them.