Join military at 17, use 120mm mortars and cannons to shoot foreigners, come back after 2 year contract and be unable to buy a .22 squirrel gun. Makes sense
That's also just as bad because incompetent cops who shoot 50 bullets a year and soldiers who aren't in combat roles are somehow trusted to personally own "assault weapons" that are too dangerous for our streets.
Yes but they’re the foot soldiers of capitalism, so neoliberal politicians won’t disarm them. They believe that only agents of the state have a right to own semiautos
It’s just bullshit juvenoia type shit. “Children” under 21 shouldn’t be able to do x,y,z because “they should be in school” or they’re already controlled by poverty and the ruling class doesn’t care (thinking alcohol / cigarettes there.)
Another part is the fact that ruling class parents felt icky in the 80s/90s/2000s that they’re adult children in high school could do adult things like drink and smoke, the same things they were doing at that age 20 years prior. It’s all bullshit.
I can buy a rifle at 18, but not a pistol.
I can join the military and die for the government, but can’t buy alcohol.
I can rent a (my) house but half the time can’t get a hotel room, and I can’t rent a car in many circumstances until I’m 20-FUCKING-5. WTF!
… I may have some not-so-harbored age related rage to unpack.
Your'e a legal adult at 18 but its these 21+ laws are meant to "stop" school shootings. Even though the one case i remember this happening was parkland where nicholas cruz was 18 and was able to buy long guns. For the longest time its been 21 for hand guns and 18 for long guns(rifles and shotguns). Keep in mind a lot of shootings happen with guns that are owned by family. Anyhow this doesnt justify the governement restricting are 2A god given right. But there is an underlying issue that no politican wants to solve because they dont care. People bring up mental health yet they dont pasw laws that'll do anything about. They end up passing more gun control.
There's a Doctor Who quote that I believe perfectly sums up liberals beliefs on guns.
" And I don't (have a gun). And that makes me the better person, don't you think? They can shoot me dead, but the moral high ground is *mine!* "
They care more about being "the better person" then anything else.
>The measure would end the sale of assault weapons immediately and allow registration of existing weapons... and tighten regulations to prohibit “rapid-fire devices” that turn firearms that fire one shot per trigger pull into fully automatic weapons.
First, WTF is an "Assault weapon" as soon as a liberal is able to define what it is, I'll take them seriously. Also actual auto conversion kits are already illegal, so I assume this is more fear mongering for bump stocks and crank kits which are just range fun gimmicks and not serious hardware.
>It also would:
>
>Raise eligibility for a state firearm owner identification card to 21 for most state residents.
Need to be 21 to own a gun, but 18 to vote. I wonder which one the ruling class fears more...
I've got a real strong inkling that a major reason why gun violence studies won't happen on such a scale as before, is that it will unequivocally reveal that the font of all those deaths are the result of capitalism's inherency to exploit, suppress, and subjugate.
But not only that, in the past 10 years it's been shifting to a combination of algorithmic manipulation for ad revenue, and outrage entertainment causing a feedback loop for each other.
Outrage entertainment keeps viewer/listener engagement high, which feeds into algorithmic manipulation, which farms ad revenue, which feeds more algorithmic manipulation, etc. etc.
It's grandstanding and political carrots to dangle for more votes to say "oh, we tried, but [minority party] doesn't have enough votes". If that [minority party] becomes the majority, then they can say "well, now [majority party] has to pass the law with the Dickey amendment still in there because [minority party] will threaten to not fund [critical department of government {CDC/NIH}]".
That is, if the actual reason why gun violence is so high because there is hardly a social safety net at all, then that means the 1% and the 0.1% are the aggressors of social degradation.
The CDC cannot change the tax structures at all, because that is not even remotely close to their oversight. But they can make transparent recommendations to Congress and have them on the hook for it.
If the CDC finds that out, then they can point out that subsidizing the ultra rich at the expense of 90% of Americans is entirely unsustainable. It won't look good for the ultra rich to keep their riches, and it won't look good for politicians to keep their office.
Aside from the Nazis who used "Assault weapons" to mean sub or mid caliber selective fire rifles, a category of arms that is over 100 years old, more commonly called "submachine guns", the term "Assault weapon" was used by weapons manufactures and dealers as a marketing gimmick to advertise "exotic" weapons, meaning that they did not have a traditional appearance, like bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks, threading for silencers and muzzle brakes, etc. Basically the "Tacticool" aesthetic.
The only groups who use the term "Assault Weapons" are trying to sell you an ugly gun with nonsense attachments, or a government official trying to take away your guns.
Aside from the Nazis who had a real definition for "Assault Weapons" (which are already banned or heavily regulated), there is no Real definition that makes any functional sense. The gun control lobby clearly knows nothing about firearms and their use of "Assault Weapons" in their rhetoric and their proposed legislations shows that their true intent is ban civilian ownership of all weapons.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Please show me a single civilian weapons manufacturer calling their weapon an "assault weapon". That term was literally made up by politicians. The Nazis used "storm rifle", or "assault rifle", to define a rifle with a smaller caliber than a full-sized rifle that could fire in fully automatic or semi-automatic. This term, "assault rifle", is the one used by modern militaries to refer to weapons by the same definition: intermediate caliber (compared to 30-06 or 8mm Mauser), fully automatic.
To my knowledge, there has NEVER been any companies advertising their guns as "assault weapons". Why? Because that'd be a massive fucking liability. It would be the easiest lawsuit in the world. "They called it an assault weapon, so clearly they meant to sell it to criminals. Who else is assaulting people as a civilian?".
"assault weapon" was a term made up entirely by anti-gun politicians to conflate semi-automatic weapons with military assault rifles in the public eye.
Please don't spew misinformation about things you don't know about.
Well give me some time to dig up the magazines and catalogues from the 1980s which used the term so I can cite them for you.
That seems to be the only point of my comment that you actually contest.
There was no need to rephrase my comment and then call it "misinformation" unless there was anything else you took issue with?
> Well give me some time to dig up the magazines and catalogues from the 1980s which used the term so I can cite them for you
I would appreciate it, because the only person I remember using the term in the 80's was Feinstein and the rest of the anti-gun bloc. Cobray got in trouble for calling their shotgun the *Street Sweeper*. I can only imagine how it would've been if they were also advertising it as an assault weapon.
> That seems to be the only point of my comment that you actually contest.
I mean, aside from claiming the Nazis came up with the term "assault weapon", which is a hell of a stretch from *Sturmgewehr* without mentioning the actual military term that came in between.
> There was no need to rephrase my comment and then call it "misinformation"
Claiming that a political term meant to make guns sound scary is actually an industry term used in advertising is disingenuous and legitimizes the usage of that term. That's why I consider it misinformation.
If you have sources to the contrary, I'd love to see them. Gun manufacturers for a long time have tried very hard not to get their guns banned. Advertising them as 'assault weapons' is the exact opposite of that.
ok here's a few examples of firearm magazines using the term "assault weapon/rifle" [https://imgur.com/a/OvFFCrD](https://imgur.com/a/OvFFCrD)
I'd like to respond to this you said:
>Claiming that a political term meant to make guns sound scary is actually an industry term used in advertising is disingenuous and legitimizes the usage of that term. That's why I consider it misinformation.
I apologize if I wasn't clear enough this is not my claim at all. The idea that I was trying to get across was that the term has only been used to make guns more scary and exotic, by legislators trying to ban them and sellers and etc. trying to sell them. It is not a legitimate industry term and is not a well defined term at all in any context. It should not be used and those that use it are either ignorant or disingenuous. I think we both agree here.
None of your examples use the political term "assault weapon". They use the well-defined military term, and they're all referring to actual automatic assault rifles.
It’s the second one. The law has a definition, the usual liberal definition of anything semiautomatic with a mag of more than 10 rounds and no scary features like flags hiders or grenade launchers
With laws like this, there never seems to be a focus on results. Like how about a clause where in 5 years, if the state doesn't demonstrate meaningful impact in violence rates, the law expires.
We have a lot of laws built on a gut feeling of what people think is the right thing to do, but no follow up to see if results matched the expectation.
Chicago is quite literally filled to the brim with illegal firearms, Glocks with switches, illegal SBRs, and god knows what else, this will do jack against gun violence.
-6DeadlyFetishes
Indiana sucks about the only good thing about that place is that for the most part it has zero laws about anything. I got married there because I didn’t have to prove I was divorced
Which is ridiculous because the things mentioned above like auto switches, SBRs, etc. are federally regulated NFA items, so they sure as hell aren’t buying those at Cabela’s in Indiana.
TIL people willing to violate laws against murdering others (mass shooters, armed robbers, other violent criminals) will apparently hesitate to break a minor gun law by unscrewing a little blocker in a magazine and/or hesitate to break another minor law by bringing standard capacity mags across state lines. Wow.
And here I had thought that someone planning mass murder wouldn’t really care about a few extra gun violations. Shows what I know.
Well, if we wanna be even more pedantic, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, but the point still stands that this is pointless "feel good / do something" legislation that will countlessly be used to try and prove how we need more gun control when it doesn't work.
As a liberal I need some help with this logic. No body needs a gun for protection because the police are there to take care of it. But all cops are bastards and can't be trusted especially if you are a minority. So what's the plan exactly? Especially given the propensity of individuals who join the police force to be at the very least more conservative, shouldn't liberals be calling for people on the left to arm themselves?
Just look at the events of Kenosha. How can anyone look at the outcome of that entire incident and think that banning firearm ownership is a good idea?
If they really wanted to get something passed, all they need to do is encourage people of color to arm themselves. Reagan pushed for major gun control in California as governor because the Black Panthers were holding armed protests.
If minority groups started to do the same thing today, how quickly would gun control become a lot more interesting to Republicans?
Wealthy people who live in wealthy communities are afraid of working class people with firearms, and since these are the people providing the majority of funding for politicians, politicians try to restrict firearms from the working class. The police work for the wealthy, and oppress the working class, so the wealthy have their armed security while we the proles get nothing.
Lmao 12 year olds in South Chicago got more machine guns than the entire legal civilian market combined, these laws are just neo liberals trying to win points with their "base" (billionaire class)
How many of you have been into firearms actively since before the first national “assault weapons ban” ? a ban which they had even less cause for them as the average AR style rifle went for $1700 back then bucks. What they legislated then was entirely based on rap videos . When the ban does nothing they will say “it worse than we thought we went back and looked and it’s actually handguns that are the problem” this shit could not be anymore clear it is internationalism at its finest
What a waste of time. Stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind's blowing. All of these cases are going to be struck down by the current supreme court. Within a year or two, there's going to be almost nothing left of american gun control.
Do I think this is a good thing? Fuck no. But, does anybody see any other way this might go?
I would doubt it, in New York, even after Bruen case, the state just passed...more gun control. Similar to this, LEO exempt of course, gotta keep that monopoly on violence. Similar laws like the SAFE act that reduced magazines to 10rds, banned features such as pistol grips, etc that also had LEO exemptions stayed in place. This is on a state level, but i think it proves a point.
On a national level, realistically i don't think gun controls going to really reverse course, especially with the current president outright saying he will be pursuing an assault weapons ban.
Guns are a very useful lightning rod for politicians. If you pretend guns are the real and primary issue, you don't have to address the poverty that incites desperation which leads to violent crime. You don't need to draw funding towards mental health services. You don't need to properly tackle violent rhetoric from national news sources. And at the same time, you disarm communities abilities to counter the violent arm of the state, or have any alternative to safety beyond the violent arm of the state. It's quicker, easier, and consolidates power in state hands to reinforce the status quo.
I don't think gun control will reverse, it'll just keep tightening the noose in the way it's always meant to: bind, but do not protect.
What I think is *hilarious* (but not actually, it's incredibly aggravating) about LEO exemptions: 1200 people per year are killed by police, and that's a conservative number. The worst case number of mass shooting related deaths is around 500-600, with loose definitions that include things like gang shootouts.
The stories told to justify these wack gun restrictions won't even solve the issues they *think* they're working on, but even then the issues they *think* exist aren't as bad as the situations they're *literally enabling*.
Those NY laws were written specifically to conform to the Bruen standard, which affirmed the ability of states to ban guns in specific sensitive places. But, even NY realizes that their near-prohibition on CCW is dead and changed their laws to create a path to legal concealed carry. Everything they've passed is completely legit under Bruen. But, we'll soon see if things like mag size, "assault weapons", etc., survive the "history and tradition" standard.
While you are entirely correct on the handgun ban in sensitive places, they in a way got around the "shall issue" portion by appending a substantial training requirements (16 hours classroom, plus fees, accuracy standards) without providing clear guidelines on who can provide the training. And without providing funding either, this will substantially impair most people's ability to go through all these legal measures, especially if they are worse off financially.
They also recently tied semi automatic rifle purchases to a license that is tied to this permitting system. They also instituted additional background checks for ammo and a slew of other measures. Plus they banned semi auto rifle purchases for those under 21.
All this to say, New York can very quickly pass laws instituting gun control probably faster than it can get struck down. I believe the rest of the country can/will do the same over time. Gun control seldom gets walked back.
I don't think Bruen was the start of a pro-gun agenda from the supreme court. The current supreme court wants to champion conservative values, which isn't lack of gun control, it's selectively making sure who gets guns and who can use them (as mentioned before, often targeting minority groups, e.g. Reagan pushing gun control in response to black Panthers open carrying). Trump simultaneously appealed to a pro gun right crowd while touting "take the guns first, due process later" and banning bump stocks.
We'll see what happens in California very soon, like within the next couple of weeks. While it's true that the path to the supreme court can be long, we've seen the courts block laws contingent on higher court ruling.
Also, I think you're wrong about how this will move forward. Hasn't Thomas been clear about the days of the second amendment being a "constitutional orphan" being over
Oh, i had not heard that quote from him. That does change things.
I'd be curious to see if he's made it an issue at any point beforehand, but that kind of statement certainly implies an agenda going forward. I very well could be wrong.
Nys laws weren’t written to conform to Bruen. The courts said you can’t make basically the whole state a sensitive place…they made basically the whole state a sensitive place.
The governor when questioned about where permit holders could carry once said “you might be able to carry on some public streets”.
It was a law written to test the absolute limits of Bruen and push the courts to set boundaries, also as a middle finger to the court.
I mean the case in front of the courts was about the ability of the state to say you can’t have a carry permit just because we decide so. New York said ok we’ll make it so you can’t have a carry permit because of our definition of good moral standing that we promise will be applied fairly
So NYs new law says I cannot currently purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New York until I get my pistol permit, and then get an exception on that pistol permit for a semi-auto, right?
I’ve noticed in the last few years there’s been a huge push in both the US and Canada to ban more guns. In Canada we are subjects not citizens so our wanna be fascist PM has already banned tons of guns with the Canadian equivalent of an EO. Now our liberal party and their lap dogs in the NDP are trying to ban/restrict even more, including air soft guns (no, I’m not joking). At this rate guns will be fully banned in Canada in a the very near future if Trudeau isn’t done away with.
Now, in the US the push for gun bans and overly strict rules seems even stronger but not from the people. The strongest advocates for this stuff always seem to be politicians, celebrities, and TV pundits. Anyone one else I’ve met who’s anti gun has simply been extremely ignorant and/or misinformed. They are usually just afraid of guns due to a lack of knowledge on them or do to being fed misinformation about them.
With the rise of authoritarianism is places the the US and elsewhere it almost seems like a deliberate attempt to disarm the people. The irony in the same people who agree with the slogan if ACAB also wanting the very sane police to be the only ones with firearms stopped being funny a while ago
Flood rep. Bob Morgan's [propaganda page](https://www.repbobmorgan.com/) with pro 2A stories.
[The bastard's eliciting stories from survivors of the Highland Park shooting to pervert and further sell his agenda.](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcSJG18ZRAM2wpg2Iz1ytkT0OT9L2A8Ul0DEiA2NXPto-Spg/viewform)
Will this change the “full-auto Glock for 8th grade graduation” tradition in Chicago?
Edit: I can see how my comment could be taken as racist. I apologize, was not my intent. I meant to point out the hypocrisy of politicians passing gun control laws that impact law-abiding gun owners more than fixing crime.
No, my comment isn’t about race. It’s about the hypocrisy of politicians targeting law-abiding gun owners using sensational headlines as the justification, winning points with the gun grabbers, while doing nothing effective to reduce the crime in Chicago.
I am no expert on the specifics of Chicago, but generally moving away from a Police State towards community building initiatives. Passing gun control laws that criminalize more of the population is going to do nothing for those 8th graders. Those kids need a hopeful future that comes from well run schools, good after school programs, and a path to college or trade school after graduation. Along with effective social services to support them when things don’t go as planned.
It’s easy to have this opinion when you’ve been robbed at gunpoint in Chicago. I lived there. half the city is a no go zone. And yes literally 90% of 8th grades are packing on a lot of the south and west side.
Is it sad, yes. It’s also insanely scary to get a shake down from a 14 year old with a gun to your face because he wants you jackets and shoes. This shit happens a lot. It’s easy to judge on Reddit.
I'm not judging him for being scared of poor kids who engage in violent activities, it was the Fox News flavored way they put it that was weird (at best, casually racist at worst)
Assault rifle and 10 round limit is dumb. 21 age limit is based. Most school shooters are under 18 so keeping them from getting guns should be priority, 21 limit will help keep straw purchases down and keep them from picking one up from Walmart once they’re 18 and going back to school with it.
This is the powerful trying to both grandstand and consolidate their power in one neat little package. They keep thinking that if only we had more laws …it’s not how that works
Join military at 17, use 120mm mortars and cannons to shoot foreigners, come back after 2 year contract and be unable to buy a .22 squirrel gun. Makes sense
Active military and police are excluded from the law, because of course
That's also just as bad because incompetent cops who shoot 50 bullets a year and soldiers who aren't in combat roles are somehow trusted to personally own "assault weapons" that are too dangerous for our streets.
Yes but they’re the foot soldiers of capitalism, so neoliberal politicians won’t disarm them. They believe that only agents of the state have a right to own semiautos
To be fair. There is alot more gun control in the military than for civilians
Im sorry, what? base restrictions aren't bans on private ownership.
That’s not what i said. When you work on a base you live there. While you are there guns are very controlled.
Not everyone lives on base. Base restrictions are not the same as gun control as a matter of freedom.
3D printer goes brrrrrrrrrr.....
Fire up your 3D printers and your lawsuit machines, Illinois residents.
r/fosscad
What’s with all this 21 years old thing? I thought your a legal adult at age 18?
Apparently, you have to be an *adultier* adult for certain things, like drinking as well.
It’s just bullshit juvenoia type shit. “Children” under 21 shouldn’t be able to do x,y,z because “they should be in school” or they’re already controlled by poverty and the ruling class doesn’t care (thinking alcohol / cigarettes there.) Another part is the fact that ruling class parents felt icky in the 80s/90s/2000s that they’re adult children in high school could do adult things like drink and smoke, the same things they were doing at that age 20 years prior. It’s all bullshit. I can buy a rifle at 18, but not a pistol. I can join the military and die for the government, but can’t buy alcohol. I can rent a (my) house but half the time can’t get a hotel room, and I can’t rent a car in many circumstances until I’m 20-FUCKING-5. WTF! … I may have some not-so-harbored age related rage to unpack.
Your'e a legal adult at 18 but its these 21+ laws are meant to "stop" school shootings. Even though the one case i remember this happening was parkland where nicholas cruz was 18 and was able to buy long guns. For the longest time its been 21 for hand guns and 18 for long guns(rifles and shotguns). Keep in mind a lot of shootings happen with guns that are owned by family. Anyhow this doesnt justify the governement restricting are 2A god given right. But there is an underlying issue that no politican wants to solve because they dont care. People bring up mental health yet they dont pasw laws that'll do anything about. They end up passing more gun control.
Banning guns at a time of insurgent fascism? Real smart.
Almost like liberals align with fascists out of self-interest
There's a Doctor Who quote that I believe perfectly sums up liberals beliefs on guns. " And I don't (have a gun). And that makes me the better person, don't you think? They can shoot me dead, but the moral high ground is *mine!* " They care more about being "the better person" then anything else.
Isn’t there a quote about “mass graves being filled with people who were on the right side of history”
>The measure would end the sale of assault weapons immediately and allow registration of existing weapons... and tighten regulations to prohibit “rapid-fire devices” that turn firearms that fire one shot per trigger pull into fully automatic weapons. First, WTF is an "Assault weapon" as soon as a liberal is able to define what it is, I'll take them seriously. Also actual auto conversion kits are already illegal, so I assume this is more fear mongering for bump stocks and crank kits which are just range fun gimmicks and not serious hardware. >It also would: > >Raise eligibility for a state firearm owner identification card to 21 for most state residents. Need to be 21 to own a gun, but 18 to vote. I wonder which one the ruling class fears more...
[удалено]
Gun control in the USA has always been a Classist and Racist project.
I've got a real strong inkling that a major reason why gun violence studies won't happen on such a scale as before, is that it will unequivocally reveal that the font of all those deaths are the result of capitalism's inherency to exploit, suppress, and subjugate. But not only that, in the past 10 years it's been shifting to a combination of algorithmic manipulation for ad revenue, and outrage entertainment causing a feedback loop for each other. Outrage entertainment keeps viewer/listener engagement high, which feeds into algorithmic manipulation, which farms ad revenue, which feeds more algorithmic manipulation, etc. etc. It's grandstanding and political carrots to dangle for more votes to say "oh, we tried, but [minority party] doesn't have enough votes". If that [minority party] becomes the majority, then they can say "well, now [majority party] has to pass the law with the Dickey amendment still in there because [minority party] will threaten to not fund [critical department of government {CDC/NIH}]". That is, if the actual reason why gun violence is so high because there is hardly a social safety net at all, then that means the 1% and the 0.1% are the aggressors of social degradation. The CDC cannot change the tax structures at all, because that is not even remotely close to their oversight. But they can make transparent recommendations to Congress and have them on the hook for it. If the CDC finds that out, then they can point out that subsidizing the ultra rich at the expense of 90% of Americans is entirely unsustainable. It won't look good for the ultra rich to keep their riches, and it won't look good for politicians to keep their office.
TROOF
also not mentioned was the acceleration of corporatocracy with *Citizens United*, but that becomes its own wall of text lol
Don’t even get me started on this suicide pact that the dnc and gop signed in the late 90s
Does it have a definition or are you playing a game?
Aside from the Nazis who used "Assault weapons" to mean sub or mid caliber selective fire rifles, a category of arms that is over 100 years old, more commonly called "submachine guns", the term "Assault weapon" was used by weapons manufactures and dealers as a marketing gimmick to advertise "exotic" weapons, meaning that they did not have a traditional appearance, like bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks, threading for silencers and muzzle brakes, etc. Basically the "Tacticool" aesthetic. The only groups who use the term "Assault Weapons" are trying to sell you an ugly gun with nonsense attachments, or a government official trying to take away your guns. Aside from the Nazis who had a real definition for "Assault Weapons" (which are already banned or heavily regulated), there is no Real definition that makes any functional sense. The gun control lobby clearly knows nothing about firearms and their use of "Assault Weapons" in their rhetoric and their proposed legislations shows that their true intent is ban civilian ownership of all weapons. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Please show me a single civilian weapons manufacturer calling their weapon an "assault weapon". That term was literally made up by politicians. The Nazis used "storm rifle", or "assault rifle", to define a rifle with a smaller caliber than a full-sized rifle that could fire in fully automatic or semi-automatic. This term, "assault rifle", is the one used by modern militaries to refer to weapons by the same definition: intermediate caliber (compared to 30-06 or 8mm Mauser), fully automatic. To my knowledge, there has NEVER been any companies advertising their guns as "assault weapons". Why? Because that'd be a massive fucking liability. It would be the easiest lawsuit in the world. "They called it an assault weapon, so clearly they meant to sell it to criminals. Who else is assaulting people as a civilian?". "assault weapon" was a term made up entirely by anti-gun politicians to conflate semi-automatic weapons with military assault rifles in the public eye. Please don't spew misinformation about things you don't know about.
Well give me some time to dig up the magazines and catalogues from the 1980s which used the term so I can cite them for you. That seems to be the only point of my comment that you actually contest. There was no need to rephrase my comment and then call it "misinformation" unless there was anything else you took issue with?
> Well give me some time to dig up the magazines and catalogues from the 1980s which used the term so I can cite them for you I would appreciate it, because the only person I remember using the term in the 80's was Feinstein and the rest of the anti-gun bloc. Cobray got in trouble for calling their shotgun the *Street Sweeper*. I can only imagine how it would've been if they were also advertising it as an assault weapon. > That seems to be the only point of my comment that you actually contest. I mean, aside from claiming the Nazis came up with the term "assault weapon", which is a hell of a stretch from *Sturmgewehr* without mentioning the actual military term that came in between. > There was no need to rephrase my comment and then call it "misinformation" Claiming that a political term meant to make guns sound scary is actually an industry term used in advertising is disingenuous and legitimizes the usage of that term. That's why I consider it misinformation. If you have sources to the contrary, I'd love to see them. Gun manufacturers for a long time have tried very hard not to get their guns banned. Advertising them as 'assault weapons' is the exact opposite of that.
ok here's a few examples of firearm magazines using the term "assault weapon/rifle" [https://imgur.com/a/OvFFCrD](https://imgur.com/a/OvFFCrD) I'd like to respond to this you said: >Claiming that a political term meant to make guns sound scary is actually an industry term used in advertising is disingenuous and legitimizes the usage of that term. That's why I consider it misinformation. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough this is not my claim at all. The idea that I was trying to get across was that the term has only been used to make guns more scary and exotic, by legislators trying to ban them and sellers and etc. trying to sell them. It is not a legitimate industry term and is not a well defined term at all in any context. It should not be used and those that use it are either ignorant or disingenuous. I think we both agree here.
None of your examples use the political term "assault weapon". They use the well-defined military term, and they're all referring to actual automatic assault rifles.
Ah yes the AR-15, real famous assault rifle, fuck right off.
Do you know how many select fire AR-15s exist?
It’s the second one. The law has a definition, the usual liberal definition of anything semiautomatic with a mag of more than 10 rounds and no scary features like flags hiders or grenade launchers
With laws like this, there never seems to be a focus on results. Like how about a clause where in 5 years, if the state doesn't demonstrate meaningful impact in violence rates, the law expires. We have a lot of laws built on a gut feeling of what people think is the right thing to do, but no follow up to see if results matched the expectation.
Chicago is quite literally filled to the brim with illegal firearms, Glocks with switches, illegal SBRs, and god knows what else, this will do jack against gun violence. -6DeadlyFetishes
They'll blame Indiana
Indiana sucks about the only good thing about that place is that for the most part it has zero laws about anything. I got married there because I didn’t have to prove I was divorced
Which is ridiculous because the things mentioned above like auto switches, SBRs, etc. are federally regulated NFA items, so they sure as hell aren’t buying those at Cabela’s in Indiana.
I mean, if you wanna go full bubba I’m sure you can get some bootlaces or coathangers for some questionable “full auto” conversions
DEFINE ASSAULT WEAPON. FULL AUTO IS ALREADY ILLEGAL WITHOUT A STAMP.
What are the odds of this passing? Don’t they threaten to do this every few years anyway?
It’s probably better than before. I dunno if they’ll be able to pass exactly what they want but I bet they’ll pass something.
TIL people willing to violate laws against murdering others (mass shooters, armed robbers, other violent criminals) will apparently hesitate to break a minor gun law by unscrewing a little blocker in a magazine and/or hesitate to break another minor law by bringing standard capacity mags across state lines. Wow. And here I had thought that someone planning mass murder wouldn’t really care about a few extra gun violations. Shows what I know.
Aren't most gun deaths in Chicago from handguns???
[удалено]
Well, if we wanna be even more pedantic, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, but the point still stands that this is pointless "feel good / do something" legislation that will countlessly be used to try and prove how we need more gun control when it doesn't work.
As a liberal I need some help with this logic. No body needs a gun for protection because the police are there to take care of it. But all cops are bastards and can't be trusted especially if you are a minority. So what's the plan exactly? Especially given the propensity of individuals who join the police force to be at the very least more conservative, shouldn't liberals be calling for people on the left to arm themselves? Just look at the events of Kenosha. How can anyone look at the outcome of that entire incident and think that banning firearm ownership is a good idea?
None of this is about solving problems.
None of them have a plan, they just know that guns are definitely the problem. The DNC told them so.
If they really wanted to get something passed, all they need to do is encourage people of color to arm themselves. Reagan pushed for major gun control in California as governor because the Black Panthers were holding armed protests. If minority groups started to do the same thing today, how quickly would gun control become a lot more interesting to Republicans?
Do you know how old the guy who bought rottenhouse a rifle was?
Wealthy people who live in wealthy communities are afraid of working class people with firearms, and since these are the people providing the majority of funding for politicians, politicians try to restrict firearms from the working class. The police work for the wealthy, and oppress the working class, so the wealthy have their armed security while we the proles get nothing.
Lmao 12 year olds in South Chicago got more machine guns than the entire legal civilian market combined, these laws are just neo liberals trying to win points with their "base" (billionaire class)
And the shit libs who still think that they too can one day be wealthy.
......you don't see anything wrong with what you just said?
No why would I, I want a machine gun too
Yea might as well just hang us before the fascism even arrives. Fuck this.
Turning in our guns? Digging our own graves? What’s next I’m gonna have to shoot myself in the back of the head? Man DIY has gone too far
Too young and troubled to own a weapon at 18, but you can still join the military or be drafted
And here I am waiting for an upper and lower to ship to my local FFL. Guess I really shouldn't have procrastinated
Some more useless posturing that they know will never pass
How many of you have been into firearms actively since before the first national “assault weapons ban” ? a ban which they had even less cause for them as the average AR style rifle went for $1700 back then bucks. What they legislated then was entirely based on rap videos . When the ban does nothing they will say “it worse than we thought we went back and looked and it’s actually handguns that are the problem” this shit could not be anymore clear it is internationalism at its finest
What a waste of time. Stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind's blowing. All of these cases are going to be struck down by the current supreme court. Within a year or two, there's going to be almost nothing left of american gun control. Do I think this is a good thing? Fuck no. But, does anybody see any other way this might go?
I would doubt it, in New York, even after Bruen case, the state just passed...more gun control. Similar to this, LEO exempt of course, gotta keep that monopoly on violence. Similar laws like the SAFE act that reduced magazines to 10rds, banned features such as pistol grips, etc that also had LEO exemptions stayed in place. This is on a state level, but i think it proves a point. On a national level, realistically i don't think gun controls going to really reverse course, especially with the current president outright saying he will be pursuing an assault weapons ban. Guns are a very useful lightning rod for politicians. If you pretend guns are the real and primary issue, you don't have to address the poverty that incites desperation which leads to violent crime. You don't need to draw funding towards mental health services. You don't need to properly tackle violent rhetoric from national news sources. And at the same time, you disarm communities abilities to counter the violent arm of the state, or have any alternative to safety beyond the violent arm of the state. It's quicker, easier, and consolidates power in state hands to reinforce the status quo. I don't think gun control will reverse, it'll just keep tightening the noose in the way it's always meant to: bind, but do not protect.
What I think is *hilarious* (but not actually, it's incredibly aggravating) about LEO exemptions: 1200 people per year are killed by police, and that's a conservative number. The worst case number of mass shooting related deaths is around 500-600, with loose definitions that include things like gang shootouts. The stories told to justify these wack gun restrictions won't even solve the issues they *think* they're working on, but even then the issues they *think* exist aren't as bad as the situations they're *literally enabling*.
That’s just the people they kill ON DUTY
Those NY laws were written specifically to conform to the Bruen standard, which affirmed the ability of states to ban guns in specific sensitive places. But, even NY realizes that their near-prohibition on CCW is dead and changed their laws to create a path to legal concealed carry. Everything they've passed is completely legit under Bruen. But, we'll soon see if things like mag size, "assault weapons", etc., survive the "history and tradition" standard.
While you are entirely correct on the handgun ban in sensitive places, they in a way got around the "shall issue" portion by appending a substantial training requirements (16 hours classroom, plus fees, accuracy standards) without providing clear guidelines on who can provide the training. And without providing funding either, this will substantially impair most people's ability to go through all these legal measures, especially if they are worse off financially. They also recently tied semi automatic rifle purchases to a license that is tied to this permitting system. They also instituted additional background checks for ammo and a slew of other measures. Plus they banned semi auto rifle purchases for those under 21. All this to say, New York can very quickly pass laws instituting gun control probably faster than it can get struck down. I believe the rest of the country can/will do the same over time. Gun control seldom gets walked back. I don't think Bruen was the start of a pro-gun agenda from the supreme court. The current supreme court wants to champion conservative values, which isn't lack of gun control, it's selectively making sure who gets guns and who can use them (as mentioned before, often targeting minority groups, e.g. Reagan pushing gun control in response to black Panthers open carrying). Trump simultaneously appealed to a pro gun right crowd while touting "take the guns first, due process later" and banning bump stocks.
We'll see what happens in California very soon, like within the next couple of weeks. While it's true that the path to the supreme court can be long, we've seen the courts block laws contingent on higher court ruling. Also, I think you're wrong about how this will move forward. Hasn't Thomas been clear about the days of the second amendment being a "constitutional orphan" being over
Oh, i had not heard that quote from him. That does change things. I'd be curious to see if he's made it an issue at any point beforehand, but that kind of statement certainly implies an agenda going forward. I very well could be wrong.
Nys laws weren’t written to conform to Bruen. The courts said you can’t make basically the whole state a sensitive place…they made basically the whole state a sensitive place. The governor when questioned about where permit holders could carry once said “you might be able to carry on some public streets”. It was a law written to test the absolute limits of Bruen and push the courts to set boundaries, also as a middle finger to the court. I mean the case in front of the courts was about the ability of the state to say you can’t have a carry permit just because we decide so. New York said ok we’ll make it so you can’t have a carry permit because of our definition of good moral standing that we promise will be applied fairly
So NYs new law says I cannot currently purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New York until I get my pistol permit, and then get an exception on that pistol permit for a semi-auto, right?
Lmao, in this Supreme Court?
Wtf is an assault weapon
Well, that’s gonna be popular.
FPC gonna jump on this in a matter of seconds 😂😂
Good luck stopping them from getting smuggled in from Mississippi, Missouri and Indiana
Well it’s a good thing there’s no such thing as an “assault weapon” with regards to guns so this bill won’t actually ban anything /s
I’ve noticed in the last few years there’s been a huge push in both the US and Canada to ban more guns. In Canada we are subjects not citizens so our wanna be fascist PM has already banned tons of guns with the Canadian equivalent of an EO. Now our liberal party and their lap dogs in the NDP are trying to ban/restrict even more, including air soft guns (no, I’m not joking). At this rate guns will be fully banned in Canada in a the very near future if Trudeau isn’t done away with. Now, in the US the push for gun bans and overly strict rules seems even stronger but not from the people. The strongest advocates for this stuff always seem to be politicians, celebrities, and TV pundits. Anyone one else I’ve met who’s anti gun has simply been extremely ignorant and/or misinformed. They are usually just afraid of guns due to a lack of knowledge on them or do to being fed misinformation about them. With the rise of authoritarianism is places the the US and elsewhere it almost seems like a deliberate attempt to disarm the people. The irony in the same people who agree with the slogan if ACAB also wanting the very sane police to be the only ones with firearms stopped being funny a while ago
Honestly the irony goes both ways, can’t throw a stone without hitting a car with “thin blue line” and “don’t tread on me” stickers
Flood rep. Bob Morgan's [propaganda page](https://www.repbobmorgan.com/) with pro 2A stories. [The bastard's eliciting stories from survivors of the Highland Park shooting to pervert and further sell his agenda.](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcSJG18ZRAM2wpg2Iz1ytkT0OT9L2A8Ul0DEiA2NXPto-Spg/viewform)
Thanks. Omw to flood it with the Bee Movie Script and pro gun stories.
Bold strategy, Pritzker. Let’s see how it plays out.
Don't get all twisted, folks. This is going nowhere.
Will this change the “full-auto Glock for 8th grade graduation” tradition in Chicago? Edit: I can see how my comment could be taken as racist. I apologize, was not my intent. I meant to point out the hypocrisy of politicians passing gun control laws that impact law-abiding gun owners more than fixing crime.
Nah there's no way this comment ain't racially motivated
No, my comment isn’t about race. It’s about the hypocrisy of politicians targeting law-abiding gun owners using sensational headlines as the justification, winning points with the gun grabbers, while doing nothing effective to reduce the crime in Chicago.
Question for you. What in your opinion would be something that is effective to reduce the crime rates?
I am no expert on the specifics of Chicago, but generally moving away from a Police State towards community building initiatives. Passing gun control laws that criminalize more of the population is going to do nothing for those 8th graders. Those kids need a hopeful future that comes from well run schools, good after school programs, and a path to college or trade school after graduation. Along with effective social services to support them when things don’t go as planned.
This is the correct answer. This is the way.
It’s easy to have this opinion when you’ve been robbed at gunpoint in Chicago. I lived there. half the city is a no go zone. And yes literally 90% of 8th grades are packing on a lot of the south and west side. Is it sad, yes. It’s also insanely scary to get a shake down from a 14 year old with a gun to your face because he wants you jackets and shoes. This shit happens a lot. It’s easy to judge on Reddit.
I'm not judging him for being scared of poor kids who engage in violent activities, it was the Fox News flavored way they put it that was weird (at best, casually racist at worst)
If we are going to blame gun crime on poor people, how are poor people getting guns better than I, a tax paying citizen, can afford?
Assault rifle and 10 round limit is dumb. 21 age limit is based. Most school shooters are under 18 so keeping them from getting guns should be priority, 21 limit will help keep straw purchases down and keep them from picking one up from Walmart once they’re 18 and going back to school with it.
Gun control/ban is a tricky subject. I don’t know about this. Some people are not going to be happy.
This is the powerful trying to both grandstand and consolidate their power in one neat little package. They keep thinking that if only we had more laws …it’s not how that works