this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
188 points (94.3% liked)

politics

18865 readers
3953 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I wish they would stop calling standard capacity rifle magazines "high capacity" to try to play them up as being in some way unusual

10 rounds isn't even really standard for pistols, basically every full size pistol comes with a magazine larger than that (for reference, the most common US police duty pistols, the Glock 19 and 22, come from the factory with 15 round magazines), smaller than that and you're getting into compacts that are meant to be more easily concealable (which itself has its own risk)

I'm fine with restrictions that make sense, but trying to say that full size pistols (with magazines >10 rounds) are "high capacity" and "not commonly used for self defense" is just patently false

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't really care what they call it, but nobody (other than mass shooters) needs to be walking around with 11+ bullets loaded. The common arguments against gun control--hunting, self defense, collecting, target shooting--are all totally unaffected by limiting the capacity of magazines.

If I had my way, people would be limited to low capacity mags and bolt action rifles. This is the sensible and legal middle ground between banning everything and banning nothing.

Now maybe you think the limit should be 15 instead of 10, or something, but those 5 extra rounds are potentially 5 more lives taken or ruined (not counting the ripple effects on family and community) in a mass shooting scenario. To me, that's incredibly difficult to justify.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

nobody (other than mass shooters) needs to be walking around with 11+ bullets loaded

I'll be ok with these laws when they apply to the police as well, but that's not how this or any other bill has been written so far.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Police and military please, either citizens can handle more than 10 round magazines or they can't, the state shouldn't have a monopoly on them

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While nice, it's almost certain this will be appealed up to the Federal Supreme Court.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Yea there is no way this won’t go to a higher court for review.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

As an Oregonian does this apply to police as well? No? Oh..

[–] WorldieBoi 0 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Thabk god. Common sense gun safety is so basic only total but jobs can argue against it. Oh wait. The supreme court. Shit.

[–] sgo -4 points 1 year ago

Seems there’s hope yet.

load more comments
view more: next ›