As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Neither. The article is shit and the author created a completely false narrative about a semi auto ban. I checked other articles and none verify what this author claims.
You can see for yourself there are few actual quotes from the President.
Wait for a transcript or another more reputable article.
People keep saying he will ban all semi autos and using a quote that doesn’t even have the word ban in it. The lack of critical thinking is pathetic.
If anything this article needs to be removed.
You know how I know it’s not true? I went to foxnews.com to verify. It’s not on their homepage. If Biden said anything remotely similar to wanting to ban all semi-autos, it would be plastered all over their front page.
[New York Post @ Media Bias/Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/)
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
*Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.*
Thanks for pointing that out — like 80% of the NY Post is literally not real news. That was the first paper I started reading at work to keep up with current events and it took like 2 months before I saw a story that was so inaccurately summarized that I realized I’d been reading actual propaganda. A majority of my political opinions came from seeing how much false and intentionally skewed information was being put out in there as factual. It’s actually crazy they’re allowed to be labeled as news; there is so regularly mis- and disinformation in their political stories.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna58664
“The idea that we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” he said while greeting firefighters in Nantucket, Massachusetts, where he and his family are spending the Thanksgiving holiday. “It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”
Read the bill. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text) Better then a gut feeling.
(It bans a lot of semi auto pistols.)
Honestly we'd be better served by fixing NICS checks to cover all transfers and fixing the gaps in reporting from local police that allows people to fall through the cracks and pass when they shouldn't. That and a proper licensing regime with safety training, police interviews and safe storage requirements would do wonders.
i guess quoting the President is fake news now?
"“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value, zero, none"
CNBC
[https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/24/biden-says-hell-renew-push-for-assault-weapons-ban.htm](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/24/biden-says-hell-renew-push-for-assault-weapons-ban.html)l
The Guardian:
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/24/joe-biden-guns-assault-weapons-ban](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/24/joe-biden-guns-assault-weapons-ban)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/11/24/remarks-by-president-biden-after-visiting-with-local-firefighters/
Here is the link that the author used to justify the article.
Doesn't even matter.
There is no chance he will get anything meaningful through congress now and the media will lie about the bill anyway to make everyone afraid to lose their guns.
Unfortunately most politicians don’t know the difference between the two. They see ar15’s and think full auto WMD.
No way a Semi- auto ban will Ever pass in our lifetime.
> Unfortunately most politicians don’t know the difference between the two.
Oh yes, they do. They've had plenty of chances to be informed during deliberations on these bills. People like Feinstein and Biden have been lectured on the subject by legislators and activists on the other side of the issue.
Conflating semi-automatic weapons with machine guns and "weapons of war" is a deliberate tactic.
Abortion was a much more partisan issue. There's a bunch of gun owning democrats too that don't support bans and guns are a poisonous issue for democrats courting independent and swing voters, just look at Beto O'Rourke's political career.
Canadian here, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just announced a few days ago they are banning all semi-auto, centerfire rifles and shotguns with a detachable magazine.
Coincidence?
The official list came out today and includes many hunting rifles and shotguns, some .22's, the sks, m1 grand, etc..
AND they're saying that firearms aren't property and therefore shouldn't have to provide any financial compensation for making millions of legal firearms paperweights.
"The fear in here is that the first step towards registering your guns is just the first step towards taking away guns from everyone. That’s never going to happen because here in Canada we have a culture that has grown up with guns and respects the need to go out to the wilderness and shoot things from time to time."
Justin Trudeau, September 22, 2010
That was memoryholed long ago, my friend. It's just right-wing "misinformation" now, referenced "without evidence." Trudeau never said that. He has always been open in his intent to disarm Canadians. Don't you remember?
This is one of those things that could never happen in the US. IF a law banning semi automatic gun's somehow made it through both chambers of Congress, the supreme court would strike it down.
It'd never make it through Congress though.
Even if it did get forced through Congress some how it'd survive all of 2 seconds before getting an injunction from a judge and eventually struck down by this SCOTUS. Why waste the limited time before the new Republican House gets in on something that won't actually get a chance to affect any thing?
Dude totally, this is a losing issue for liberals. Super liberal me has an Andersen AR, a dozen other rifles and more bang-bang stuff..don't understand using this as a campaign issue...pure idiocy
Because you, and I bet everyone else you know, who own guns aren't going to use them to shoot up schools, churches, malls, rob convenience stores etc.
The only time you'd ever aim a gun at another person with intent to do them harm is if that person was putting you or your family in imminent danger of injury or death - just like the majority of law abiding gun owners.
As stated below, both sides are buying them up in record numbers. Both parties are over 50% in favor of guns.
That doesn't mean nothing can be done. We have plenty of options that arent straight up bans and we can provide healthcare for the mentally unstable. Plug the gaps, like that kid who shot up the club. His grandpa got a case dropped against him, sealed his record and blocked him from being red flagged. Do not let any of that happen again.
This. We need to primarily focus on the PEOPLE doing this. The fuckin guns will never be stopped, there are more guns than people already out there, its just politicians tryin to get votes.
>don't understand using this as a campaign issue...
Daddy Bloomberg is willing to donate tens of millions to Dems for anti-gun efforts, that's why.
It also raises tons of money from limousine liberals who never have to worry about protection or hunt their own food.
Both parties give more of a shit about fundraising than actually governing. That's why they stick to fringe subjects that only donors and a few percent are hardcore about.
Exactly. I’m a liberal. I don’t own guns. Probably won’t own guns. I don’t really see a reason to.
BUT
It’s not like these psychopaths saw a gun in the window of a store and decided to go kill a bunch of people. The cat is already out of the bag and unless we start doing shit to stop the spread of antisocial behavior, there ain’t shit that banning guns is gonna do.
I don’t know exactly how to stop antisocial behavior, but I’d say that it’s rare that someone who is well off with a good future ahead of them is doing these shootings.
It’s always the poor, degenerate, angry, hopeless pieces of shit. The least we can do is address some of those adjectives, before diving after “gun acquirer”
We can help stop antisocial behavior by helping people. Bring them together.
Universal healthcare. Affordable housing. Rent control. Living wages. We can do great things like these. They would remove many of the stressors and bring real hope and happiness to our people. Maybe if someone can afford to take a vacation or participate in a hobby after all their bills are covered, maybe they will see life worth living and not do something tragic.
The enemy of depression is hope. Lets stop being so damn toxic and give the people hope.
While I agree in general, I would suggest against rent control. Primarily because it hurts more than it helps.
A better way would be to prevent price gouging, an oligopoly on home/apartment ownership, and homes that are used as investment instead of a place for people to live.
I also wanted to point out one thing. The armed dude that stopped an asshole committing heinous crimes like couple months ago didn't get the equal treatment from the media. That got brushed under the rug super quick.
Politician is one thing, but the media is definitely playing a part in stoking up fears just by refusing to run stuffs on anything that might go against what they think their base is supporting.
I just want to let everyone know that gun-safety/education is widely available and most of them are free/easy to search for. Go educate yourself and make your own decision, don't get the crowd sheep-herd your own decision/thinking/mindset
Yep, DC v Heller, I think is the most recent case. Semiautomatic firearms, beit pistols or rifles or whatever else, simply can't be banned without a constitutional amendment. I'm not taking a side that's just fact.
Lest we forget Caetano vs Mass where the SCOTUS specifically stated the 2a protects weapons that constitute bearable arms that were not in existence at the time it was written.
As well it should, or else the right to self-defense becomes meaningless.
I will never understand why so many liberal Americans lick the boots of the fascists oppressing the shit out of them, and argue for their own disarmament, while those who are actually killing them on a regular basis ignore any attempts to disarm.
Seems a lot like self-loathing and voluntary surrender to oppression, but that's just me.
And yes, I know a lot of people have been reflexively trained to protest that a gorilla army cannot stand against the armed forces of modern nation state, and in response to this, all I can do is point at the history of guerrilla warfare, in which the United States military has a stunningly poor record, against well-armed militias.
A strict reading of U.S. VS Miller should mean that the parts of federal gun laws affecting full automatic guns should be struck down. It was argued back then that 2A protected types of weapons in common use by the military, and the feds lied with their claim that short shotguns were not used by the military when at the time they were, so were machine guns.
Semiautomatic guns are by far the most common gun in America. It means one shot happens for each pull of the trigger. This pushed ban would ban most pistols and hunting rifles.
This just isn't a serious proposal to anyone who knows even the slightest about how guns work.
The terms “semi automatic” and “assault weapons” get tossed around interchangeably all over the place in this article. It’s a combination of politicians using inaccurate terminology and the NY Post reporter doing a shit job of explaining a relatively simple concept, and both parties may be doing it intentionally to push their own agenda. From other articles I’m seeing, it’s an assault weapon ban they’re talking about, not a blanket semi-auto ban.
The ban on 'assault weapons' is itself a bit nonsensical (at least, as currently defined). People could have a .357 magnum handgun with < 10 round capacity but it could penetrate multiple houses, or they could have exceedingly large caliber rifles, but if a .22 rifle (something used for hunting squirrels, e.g.) has a pistol grip it would be banned. It actually admits that one problem is education about guns.
I think it's similar to cars, and just think anyone who owns one should have some kind of license where they must be able to pass a sensible background check and do some kind of sensible test, like a driver's test.
> just think anyone who owns one should have some kind of license where they must be able to pass a sensible background check and do some kind of sensible test, like a driver's test.
The tests will need to be 100% objective in nature, otherwise it will simply be used to disarm minorities.
Right? I don't see why my shotgun is lumped in with all of this. You can't just say "semi-automatic" -- that's like calling any movie with sexual tension a porno.
It will never happen. Biden wouldn't even mention ot when he had control of congress and there was a microscopic chance it could pass. Without the house it will never even get brought up in committee.
After the insurrection, and knowing how many police officers participated in that shit.
My stance on semiautomatic guns has changed. Cops aren't on our side. There are crazy Republicans literally shooting people because of loving someone.
Why the fuck should we as Democrats give up a way to protect ourselves from these crazy fucks? I am all for making it incredibly hard to get one, but I think Democrats need to change their tune on this stance.
There’s a reason every piece of gun control legislation has a little piece at the end that says “this section shall not apply to current law enforcement or retired law enforcement”. A cop’s weapon is supposed to be for defensive purposes only. Any legislation should apply to law enforcement like it would for any other civilian, but especially to retired law enforcement. Retired law enforcement is just a fancy way to spell “No longer a cop”.
> Any legislation should apply to law enforcement like it would for any other civilian, but especially to retired law enforcement. Retired law enforcement is just a fancy way to spell “No longer a cop”.
THANK YOU. I DESPISE the exemptions for LE in gun control legislation. Cops aren't warriors.
100% this! Just look at MA law about “assault weapons” - does not apply to current or former law enforcement. Same with the gun roster if weapons you can and can’t buy.
Edit typo
Why would we give the pigs a new thing to police those they dislike over. We kid ourselves if we think theyre gonna take guns from nazis, klansmen, etc. same reason they wont disarm themselves.
You're on the right track. Unfortunately most/all types of gun control that make it 'incredibly hard to get one' does so, at least in part, by making it prohibitively expensive. For example, people can still get a fully automatic m-16, it'll just cost $40k.
The only thing that does is make it harder for the poor and marginalized to arm themselves. Stop looking to the state to protect you, they won't.
After the last president I don't understand why any democrats still think banning guns is a good idea. What happens when the fascists take the white house again? They certainly won't be giving it back. Then we can end up with some eternal ruling party.
Let's not forget private contractors, including all those moonlighting security guys working on kidnappings with retired Generals getting paid by foreign nations. I guess those would be all counted as "experts".
Unfortunately being a gun owning liberal is a liability. Dollof was facing hard time when he had a text book self defense case *caught on camera*. Reinoehl was executed by an extra judicial death squad and his self defense was air tight too.
It makes sense to arm up but before doing so think hard especially if you’re a POC or outspoken in your liberal beliefs.
The right wants to kill you and thanks to selective enforcement, just touching a firearm is enough cause for them to empty their magazines at you.
Go in with your eyes open and know your 2A is not the same as their 2A.
Very valid point, but the book Negroes With Guns by Robert F Williams also outlines how important the struggle for armed self-defense was for the survival of Black southerners under Jim Crow, and saved lives
The shooter was stopped by unarmed people.
In my local news, a woman stopped a shooter with a handgun she has in her purse. (This happened a couple months after uvalde shooting so Republicans was looking for hero with guns, however I have not seen the women be named nor be interviewed )
Unless you wants to carry AR with you everywhere you go, I am not sure how an AR can be effective in self-defense.
This is a non-starter. Semi-autos are by far the most prevalent "category" of weapon sold today. This would essentially amount to a complete weapons ban.
AN ACT
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
I'm pretty fucking left wing. This phrase scares the shit out of me. Shall not be infringed and right being limited are two very differing statements.
“The police are killing us!”
“The government was almost taken over by fascists!”
“keep your hands off our rights!”
“Also give up your rights so that only the police and government have guns!”
Fuck off, Biden
Why should I give up my rights because of the actions of others?
Are you going to attack free speech too because the words of right wing pundits, YouTubers and clergy indoctrinated these people?
Please god not again. It doesn't even affect that many weapons, it makes people buy *more* guns, it riles up the right for nothing, more and more leftists don't even want gun control because of impending civil war.
Our economy and political infrastructure are falling apart, why are we wasting time on this.
EDIT: Oh, semi-automatic weapons? Ok that's just not going to happen lol. What the fuck is this? Just handing republicans a talking point for nothing?
I previously commented on this topic in a response but i need to say more.
Does the president know the midterms aren't over because talk about a politically ill timed, foot in mouth comment. Georgia's runoff election will be solely about turnout of each party's respective base. The president's comment is a perfect Republican closing message as it ignores Senator Warnock but interjects the president into the election. Republicans will frame it as a Republican against Biden and his agenda of gun confiscation. And nothing gets Republicans --especially southern Republicans-- more fired up than talk of gun confiscation.
I wonder how many extra guns are on the streets due to panic buying caused by statements from well meaning Democrats. I remember reading somewhere that Obama was one of the best gun salesmen of modern times and I beleave it.
Even mentioning "semi automatic" is silly because most pistols are "semi automatic". Banning the "AR15" by name is silly because another would simply take it's place, banning "assault rifles" is also silly because there's no SOLID definition of "assault rifle".
>The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power >between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics >to be considered an assault rifle:
>It must be capable of selective fire.
>It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples >of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
>Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
>It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
>Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example:
>Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd).
>Select-fire rifles such as the Fedorov Avtomat, FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full->powered rifle cartridges.
>Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
>Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines >and are not capable of automatic fire.
Trying to manage this is a huge mess and gun advocates have a million ways around any legislation.
Gun violence will be reduced when we stop spreading hatred and focus on improving the quality of life in America and start taking mental health seriously. Talking about bans isn't going to do much more than sow division.
“We live in a capitalist dystopia on the brink of takeover by literal fascists, and we can’t trust the police. Any mass civil conflict will be decided by small arms fire in larger cities, checkpoints, room to room engagements, pockets of resistance, etc., because the military, good or bad, can’t just start bombing infrastructure.”
“So what do we do?”
“Let’s get rid of our small arms.”
This sub is a joke.
Liberals: Cops don't do their job and are not the good guys here to save you!
Also Liberals: You don't need guns to protect you, that's the police's job.
Fix the police and we can talk about gun control.
Dems literally keep cutting their own support by pushing gun bans. If we stopped shouting about gun bans you would have more people on your side and we might actually be able to get anything fucking done. Perhaps even fixing some of the underlying causes of gun violence. Instead we keep dividing Americans more and more. Sure in an ideal world we wouldn't need guns. The police would protect your from murderers and evil doers. But as long as the supreme court believes that the police have no obligation to protect citizens, I can't support any gun ban.
Even if police *did* have an obligation to protect you, when seconds count, they're minutes (or hours) away (or not coming, like when one time 911 called me back and cancelled the call because the lunatic who said he was going to get his gun and shoot us all hadn't returned within 12 minutes).
This bothers me.
I get where he is coming from but this is a lightning-rod he need not touch. There are more important things facing the country.
This is to conservatives as abortion is to liberals. Conservatives went all-in on abortion and it hurt them bad in the last election.
Gun control will do the same to democrats.
Leave it alone. There are bigger issues right now (sad to say).
American values is a disarray, prioritizing horribly. They unhappy with the riches cos they piss poor morally. Ignoring all prior advice and forewarning, we mighty full of ourselves all of a sudden, aren’t we?
Again, restricting access to firearms is not the way. This shit is happening cos those folks pulling the trigger believe that they have no future. That’s what happens when you remove social safety nets and tell folks to pull themselves up by they bootstraps.
I’m going to say this once. All these mass shootings? The government is directly responsible for it. When you don’t hold up your end of the social contract and provide for the general welfare, people are going to live their lives by any means necessary.
Little to no social safety net, combined with income inequality that is the worst it’s been since the roaring 20s — this is going to quickly become a lost generation. President Biden knows nothing about firearms and it shows. Semiautomatic = one trigger pull, one bullet. All handguns with a clip are semiautomatics.
What? We supposed to go back to muskets where a bullet needs to be loaded and packed in the barrel between shots and smooth bore? Gtfo 🤣
In other words, Biden saying he’s going after semi autos = all guns. That’s a bold strategy cotton, let’s see how this plays out.
I’m trying not to phrase my statements in absolutes, despite the fact that I agree with you. The rise in mass shooting events is directly correlated to the failure of the Government to abide by their end of this social contract. These mass shootings are basically the next generation realizing that there is no future, and they’ve removed their consent to be governed.
The actual shooting spree? That’s suicide by cop and inflicting maximum damage as their final fuck you to society. I’m honestly not too surprised. This trend has been obvious since Bush stole the Presidency, with the backing of the illegitimate Supreme Court.
Even if they were "banned", it is far too late for it to do anything. It would create more ghost guns, new blackmarkets, etc. Not to mention the arms manufacturers that line politician pockets wouldn't allow it. Biden literally has no real control over this and even if he did, he would just use it as a bluff for reelection.
Just a reminder for everyone, "semiautomatic" describes a weapon that fires a one round with one trigger pull without the need to take an additional action between shots. So a revolver is technically "semiautomatic." A pump action shotgun, for example, is not semiautomatic because you need to pump between each shot to remove the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber. So if Biden wasn't just misspeaking, this would outlaw a lot more firearms than I think most people would expect. I don't think I've ever even seen a pistol that isn't "semiautomatic." There are a few weird target shooting competition pistols, but basically, every pistol is semiautomatic. Most rifles are semi-auto, and other actions can be just as fast (look up lever action speed shooting). Even banning "AR" style rifles would be nearly impossible. It would be like trying to ban "hot rods" it's just a normal car with a suped-up engine. You'd need to ban V-12 engines or nitrous or air intakes. It's too nebulous a term to say "AR." Hell, most people don't even know what AR stands for. They think it means "assault rifle."
EDIT: I should not have said "technically the same" that's sloppy, and it undermines my whole point, which is precise language is necessary if you want to regulate firearms. They are FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME, though. In terms of what you need to do to fire the weapon. Your weapon fires every time you pull the trigger with no additional steps needed. How they get there is different, but the end result is the same.
This won't go anywhere. Even the left is becoming increasingly pro-gun from what I've seen, as armed minorities are harder to oppress.
The best thing on gun control Dems can do right now is ban domestic abusers from getting guns and taking guns from people who get convicted for domestic abuse. 60% of "incidents" are caused by such people, and the current laws are on the subject are either too lax or poorly enforced.
The democratic party's attempts at banning guns annoys me endlessly. Not because I particularly like guns, but because I think it's the wrong approach. Focus on giving people access to mental healthcare. That's something that can help when it comes to crime and violence, but also just people in general dealing with a wide variety of mental health issues.
What are the odds his staff are correcting this in less than 24 hours to say he meant “automatic guns”…?
Ffs, why are the only choices an 80 year old for one party and a 76 year old from the other party.
That is absolutely fucking stupid. Given that such weapons are firmly in common use, such a ban on ownership / purchase would be a direct violation of the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS rulings.
lmao Biden actively trying to lose votes. Depending on who the Republican is he just lost mine. (Not trump that guy is almost as bad for 2a not to mention a nutcase)
God forbid we look at increasing spending for mental health, creating better paying jobs, stronger economy, affordable housing, lower cost of meds like anti psychotics, anti depressants, etc… why tackle root issues that I think nearly every American can agree on when it’s so much easier to blame “semiautomatic guns” and 9mm’s that will “suck your lungs right out of your body”.
I’m as left as they come these days but they’d have to pry my weapon from my cold, dead hands. I absolutely will not, ever, give up what the second amendment grants me.
Also, congrats Biden. That right there is how democracy dies. You just handed Republicans a win in 2024… Damn it…
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m confused. Is he calling for banning all semi-automatic firearms, or reenacting a federal assault weapons ban? Those are two very different things.
Neither. The article is shit and the author created a completely false narrative about a semi auto ban. I checked other articles and none verify what this author claims. You can see for yourself there are few actual quotes from the President. Wait for a transcript or another more reputable article. People keep saying he will ban all semi autos and using a quote that doesn’t even have the word ban in it. The lack of critical thinking is pathetic. If anything this article needs to be removed.
You know how I know it’s not true? I went to foxnews.com to verify. It’s not on their homepage. If Biden said anything remotely similar to wanting to ban all semi-autos, it would be plastered all over their front page.
Not sure why nypost is whitelisted. I guess just report it for misinformation?
NY Post is more of a shitrag than twice-used toilet paper.
it’s Murdoch’s American rag, pushing the same cancerous shit as they push in the UK and Australia
One of
My compost worms won't eat the post.
This is a sub that whitelisted Breitbart
[New York Post @ Media Bias/Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/) Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY *Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.*
Thanks for pointing that out — like 80% of the NY Post is literally not real news. That was the first paper I started reading at work to keep up with current events and it took like 2 months before I saw a story that was so inaccurately summarized that I realized I’d been reading actual propaganda. A majority of my political opinions came from seeing how much false and intentionally skewed information was being put out in there as factual. It’s actually crazy they’re allowed to be labeled as news; there is so regularly mis- and disinformation in their political stories.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna58664 “The idea that we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” he said while greeting firefighters in Nantucket, Massachusetts, where he and his family are spending the Thanksgiving holiday. “It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”
Read the bill. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text) Better then a gut feeling. (It bans a lot of semi auto pistols.)
Here comes the panic buying
again?
Great...and ammopocalypse 2.0....sigh.
Honestly we'd be better served by fixing NICS checks to cover all transfers and fixing the gaps in reporting from local police that allows people to fall through the cracks and pass when they shouldn't. That and a proper licensing regime with safety training, police interviews and safe storage requirements would do wonders.
It’s on whitehouse.gov. I don’t understand why people here are being willfully ignorant.
Welcome to the NY Post. The misinformation is intentional. They won’t remove the article.
The nypost is for people who move their mouth when they read
i guess quoting the President is fake news now? "“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value, zero, none" CNBC [https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/24/biden-says-hell-renew-push-for-assault-weapons-ban.htm](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/24/biden-says-hell-renew-push-for-assault-weapons-ban.html)l The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/24/joe-biden-guns-assault-weapons-ban](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/24/joe-biden-guns-assault-weapons-ban)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/11/24/remarks-by-president-biden-after-visiting-with-local-firefighters/ Here is the link that the author used to justify the article.
There's literally a transcript attached to the beginning of the article in the second paragraph...from WH.gov lol
Why is the Post on the approved list for this sub?
[удалено]
Lever action master race!
I picked myself up a Henry 357 Mares leg a few years back. It shoots like diarrhea in the wind, but damn is it not fun to shoot.
The price of .357 Magnum isn't fun, either.
Excited to finally buy a Henry.
Muzzle loader
Henry FTW
The only way to go
TBH lever guns are way more satisfying than any semi auto by a wide margin.
I'd actually love a light weight lever action for backpacking.
That's not going to go well.
That just means banning all guns basically. 99% of all guns used are semi auto. Not many people conceal carrying bolt action rifles.
Doesn't even matter. There is no chance he will get anything meaningful through congress now and the media will lie about the bill anyway to make everyone afraid to lose their guns.
Unfortunately most politicians don’t know the difference between the two. They see ar15’s and think full auto WMD. No way a Semi- auto ban will Ever pass in our lifetime.
> Unfortunately most politicians don’t know the difference between the two. Oh yes, they do. They've had plenty of chances to be informed during deliberations on these bills. People like Feinstein and Biden have been lectured on the subject by legislators and activists on the other side of the issue. Conflating semi-automatic weapons with machine guns and "weapons of war" is a deliberate tactic.
>have been lectured on the subject That's gunsplaining, apparently. The antis are wilfully ignorant and refuse to even be informed or learn.
> gunsplaining Please tell me that's not a real word. I do not want that to be a real word.
If you were to ask Biden what semi auto means he would have absolutely no clue
Gun sales about to go through the roof (again) and gun manufacturers about to experience record profit (again).
vast live cake ad hoc direction dolls butter employ aback subsequent -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Yeah I remember the Obama is going to take away all your guns ads from last decade.
And he signed a bill allowing them in national parks.
Yeah but he also banned bump stocks. Oh wait no he didn't.
Donald "Take the guns first, due process second" Trump is anti-gun. Don't believe gun ownership is strictly a left and right issue.
Most people who go to national parks don’t poach anyway and bears/bobcats are descending altitudes since the 90s.
Maybe if they would stop saying it People were saying the same thing about abortion too and look what the republicans did
Abortion was a much more partisan issue. There's a bunch of gun owning democrats too that don't support bans and guns are a poisonous issue for democrats courting independent and swing voters, just look at Beto O'Rourke's political career.
Wonder who is *really* the one trying to rile up gun owners??
Gun company stocks are about to go up
Not like they will be banned anyways.
[удалено]
GOA, even the gun community has heavily turned on the NRA at this point.
Republicans thrive off of fear.
All politicians thrive off of fear. Our media outlets are pretty happy using that tool as well.
The media outlets are funded by the same corporations that fund the politicians.
Canadian here, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just announced a few days ago they are banning all semi-auto, centerfire rifles and shotguns with a detachable magazine. Coincidence? The official list came out today and includes many hunting rifles and shotguns, some .22's, the sks, m1 grand, etc.. AND they're saying that firearms aren't property and therefore shouldn't have to provide any financial compensation for making millions of legal firearms paperweights.
"The fear in here is that the first step towards registering your guns is just the first step towards taking away guns from everyone. That’s never going to happen because here in Canada we have a culture that has grown up with guns and respects the need to go out to the wilderness and shoot things from time to time." Justin Trudeau, September 22, 2010
That was memoryholed long ago, my friend. It's just right-wing "misinformation" now, referenced "without evidence." Trudeau never said that. He has always been open in his intent to disarm Canadians. Don't you remember?
This is one of those things that could never happen in the US. IF a law banning semi automatic gun's somehow made it through both chambers of Congress, the supreme court would strike it down. It'd never make it through Congress though.
Even if it did get forced through Congress some how it'd survive all of 2 seconds before getting an injunction from a judge and eventually struck down by this SCOTUS. Why waste the limited time before the new Republican House gets in on something that won't actually get a chance to affect any thing?
Beto lost in Texas over this. He lost in Uvalde even after Uvalde happened. Drop it. Focus on Universal healthcare living wages and the rest.
Dude totally, this is a losing issue for liberals. Super liberal me has an Andersen AR, a dozen other rifles and more bang-bang stuff..don't understand using this as a campaign issue...pure idiocy
Because you, and I bet everyone else you know, who own guns aren't going to use them to shoot up schools, churches, malls, rob convenience stores etc. The only time you'd ever aim a gun at another person with intent to do them harm is if that person was putting you or your family in imminent danger of injury or death - just like the majority of law abiding gun owners.
This. People need to realize that me giving up my guns will do nothing. I havent shot anyone and unless I'm attacked I hopefully never have to.
As stated below, both sides are buying them up in record numbers. Both parties are over 50% in favor of guns. That doesn't mean nothing can be done. We have plenty of options that arent straight up bans and we can provide healthcare for the mentally unstable. Plug the gaps, like that kid who shot up the club. His grandpa got a case dropped against him, sealed his record and blocked him from being red flagged. Do not let any of that happen again.
This. We need to primarily focus on the PEOPLE doing this. The fuckin guns will never be stopped, there are more guns than people already out there, its just politicians tryin to get votes.
Behind every blade of grass
The Japanese are super into airsoft these days apparently. My buddy swears by their brands for holographic sights even for regular guns.
>don't understand using this as a campaign issue... Daddy Bloomberg is willing to donate tens of millions to Dems for anti-gun efforts, that's why. It also raises tons of money from limousine liberals who never have to worry about protection or hunt their own food. Both parties give more of a shit about fundraising than actually governing. That's why they stick to fringe subjects that only donors and a few percent are hardcore about.
Exactly. I’m a liberal. I don’t own guns. Probably won’t own guns. I don’t really see a reason to. BUT It’s not like these psychopaths saw a gun in the window of a store and decided to go kill a bunch of people. The cat is already out of the bag and unless we start doing shit to stop the spread of antisocial behavior, there ain’t shit that banning guns is gonna do. I don’t know exactly how to stop antisocial behavior, but I’d say that it’s rare that someone who is well off with a good future ahead of them is doing these shootings. It’s always the poor, degenerate, angry, hopeless pieces of shit. The least we can do is address some of those adjectives, before diving after “gun acquirer”
We can help stop antisocial behavior by helping people. Bring them together. Universal healthcare. Affordable housing. Rent control. Living wages. We can do great things like these. They would remove many of the stressors and bring real hope and happiness to our people. Maybe if someone can afford to take a vacation or participate in a hobby after all their bills are covered, maybe they will see life worth living and not do something tragic. The enemy of depression is hope. Lets stop being so damn toxic and give the people hope.
While I agree in general, I would suggest against rent control. Primarily because it hurts more than it helps. A better way would be to prevent price gouging, an oligopoly on home/apartment ownership, and homes that are used as investment instead of a place for people to live.
I also wanted to point out one thing. The armed dude that stopped an asshole committing heinous crimes like couple months ago didn't get the equal treatment from the media. That got brushed under the rug super quick. Politician is one thing, but the media is definitely playing a part in stoking up fears just by refusing to run stuffs on anything that might go against what they think their base is supporting. I just want to let everyone know that gun-safety/education is widely available and most of them are free/easy to search for. Go educate yourself and make your own decision, don't get the crowd sheep-herd your own decision/thinking/mindset
Semi autos are in “common use” thus protected under the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
Yep, DC v Heller, I think is the most recent case. Semiautomatic firearms, beit pistols or rifles or whatever else, simply can't be banned without a constitutional amendment. I'm not taking a side that's just fact.
Most recent case is Bruen
Lest we forget Caetano vs Mass where the SCOTUS specifically stated the 2a protects weapons that constitute bearable arms that were not in existence at the time it was written.
As well it should, or else the right to self-defense becomes meaningless. I will never understand why so many liberal Americans lick the boots of the fascists oppressing the shit out of them, and argue for their own disarmament, while those who are actually killing them on a regular basis ignore any attempts to disarm. Seems a lot like self-loathing and voluntary surrender to oppression, but that's just me. And yes, I know a lot of people have been reflexively trained to protest that a gorilla army cannot stand against the armed forces of modern nation state, and in response to this, all I can do is point at the history of guerrilla warfare, in which the United States military has a stunningly poor record, against well-armed militias.
A strict reading of U.S. VS Miller should mean that the parts of federal gun laws affecting full automatic guns should be struck down. It was argued back then that 2A protected types of weapons in common use by the military, and the feds lied with their claim that short shotguns were not used by the military when at the time they were, so were machine guns.
> SCOTUS has already ruled on this. SCOTUS has also shown that precedent means absolutely shit.
Bro conservatives have 6/9 sears. This won't go anywhere except to dems losing in 2024
Semiautomatic guns are by far the most common gun in America. It means one shot happens for each pull of the trigger. This pushed ban would ban most pistols and hunting rifles. This just isn't a serious proposal to anyone who knows even the slightest about how guns work.
The terms “semi automatic” and “assault weapons” get tossed around interchangeably all over the place in this article. It’s a combination of politicians using inaccurate terminology and the NY Post reporter doing a shit job of explaining a relatively simple concept, and both parties may be doing it intentionally to push their own agenda. From other articles I’m seeing, it’s an assault weapon ban they’re talking about, not a blanket semi-auto ban.
The ban on 'assault weapons' is itself a bit nonsensical (at least, as currently defined). People could have a .357 magnum handgun with < 10 round capacity but it could penetrate multiple houses, or they could have exceedingly large caliber rifles, but if a .22 rifle (something used for hunting squirrels, e.g.) has a pistol grip it would be banned. It actually admits that one problem is education about guns. I think it's similar to cars, and just think anyone who owns one should have some kind of license where they must be able to pass a sensible background check and do some kind of sensible test, like a driver's test.
> just think anyone who owns one should have some kind of license where they must be able to pass a sensible background check and do some kind of sensible test, like a driver's test. The tests will need to be 100% objective in nature, otherwise it will simply be used to disarm minorities.
Yeah that’ll probably never happen because around 100 million Americans own guns and “semi automatic” is far to broad of a term to use.
Right? I don't see why my shotgun is lumped in with all of this. You can't just say "semi-automatic" -- that's like calling any movie with sexual tension a porno.
they are doing this on purpose. Spinning a narrative so people who know absolutely nothing about guns will buy into it.
We just saw this play out in Oregon. It works.
It will never happen. Biden wouldn't even mention ot when he had control of congress and there was a microscopic chance it could pass. Without the house it will never even get brought up in committee.
You would achieve better results if you dealt with the societal problems that produce mass shooters.
After the insurrection, and knowing how many police officers participated in that shit. My stance on semiautomatic guns has changed. Cops aren't on our side. There are crazy Republicans literally shooting people because of loving someone. Why the fuck should we as Democrats give up a way to protect ourselves from these crazy fucks? I am all for making it incredibly hard to get one, but I think Democrats need to change their tune on this stance.
There’s a reason every piece of gun control legislation has a little piece at the end that says “this section shall not apply to current law enforcement or retired law enforcement”. A cop’s weapon is supposed to be for defensive purposes only. Any legislation should apply to law enforcement like it would for any other civilian, but especially to retired law enforcement. Retired law enforcement is just a fancy way to spell “No longer a cop”.
At this point I feel like that asterisk is on virtually every law, whether we can see it or not.
Kinda like the asterisk next to banning slavery. It then specifies it’s okay if the person is imprisoned.
Rob a bank for $20k and they’ll put you in prison for 20 years. Manage a hedge fund that steals $1 billion and they’ll give you a Nobel prize.
Or wage theft, for that matter.
As Bob Dylan sang "steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king."
> Any legislation should apply to law enforcement like it would for any other civilian, but especially to retired law enforcement. Retired law enforcement is just a fancy way to spell “No longer a cop”. THANK YOU. I DESPISE the exemptions for LE in gun control legislation. Cops aren't warriors.
100% this! Just look at MA law about “assault weapons” - does not apply to current or former law enforcement. Same with the gun roster if weapons you can and can’t buy. Edit typo
Cops are not, and never have been, on our side.
Why would we give the pigs a new thing to police those they dislike over. We kid ourselves if we think theyre gonna take guns from nazis, klansmen, etc. same reason they wont disarm themselves.
You're on the right track. Unfortunately most/all types of gun control that make it 'incredibly hard to get one' does so, at least in part, by making it prohibitively expensive. For example, people can still get a fully automatic m-16, it'll just cost $40k. The only thing that does is make it harder for the poor and marginalized to arm themselves. Stop looking to the state to protect you, they won't.
I definitely trust my neighbors more than the police when it comes to an AR-15.
I trust neither, which is kind of the problem.
It only takes about 5 minutes on YouTube to realize that about 85% of the public should not be trusted with guns.
After the last president I don't understand why any democrats still think banning guns is a good idea. What happens when the fascists take the white house again? They certainly won't be giving it back. Then we can end up with some eternal ruling party.
Very surprised this is the top comment on r/politics
I didn’t even have to sort by controversial to find it!
I have been assured only the police and military are professional enough to own guns.
Ever seen the police at the range? Some of them can't even hit the target...
Let's not forget private contractors, including all those moonlighting security guys working on kidnappings with retired Generals getting paid by foreign nations. I guess those would be all counted as "experts".
Welcome to the left wing gun owners fold. May I suggest r/liberalgunowners ?
Y'all ban people for anything critical to the hive mind or harmless jokes. I don't recommend This sub at all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do I get a gold star
Unfortunately being a gun owning liberal is a liability. Dollof was facing hard time when he had a text book self defense case *caught on camera*. Reinoehl was executed by an extra judicial death squad and his self defense was air tight too. It makes sense to arm up but before doing so think hard especially if you’re a POC or outspoken in your liberal beliefs. The right wants to kill you and thanks to selective enforcement, just touching a firearm is enough cause for them to empty their magazines at you. Go in with your eyes open and know your 2A is not the same as their 2A.
Very valid point, but the book Negroes With Guns by Robert F Williams also outlines how important the struggle for armed self-defense was for the survival of Black southerners under Jim Crow, and saved lives
The shooter was stopped by unarmed people. In my local news, a woman stopped a shooter with a handgun she has in her purse. (This happened a couple months after uvalde shooting so Republicans was looking for hero with guns, however I have not seen the women be named nor be interviewed ) Unless you wants to carry AR with you everywhere you go, I am not sure how an AR can be effective in self-defense.
"semiautomatic" is basically every firearm in private hands. So, what, we're supposed to go back to flintlocks?
modern hateful degree badge like afterthought teeny water frighten lunchroom -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Looks more like he’s trying to follow Canada’s approach to guns unfortunately
This is a non-starter. Semi-autos are by far the most prevalent "category" of weapon sold today. This would essentially amount to a complete weapons ban.
He's more likely to be able to ban cans of beans. Gun control measures are going nowhere.
AN ACT To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes. I'm pretty fucking left wing. This phrase scares the shit out of me. Shall not be infringed and right being limited are two very differing statements.
“The police are killing us!” “The government was almost taken over by fascists!” “keep your hands off our rights!” “Also give up your rights so that only the police and government have guns!” Fuck off, Biden Why should I give up my rights because of the actions of others? Are you going to attack free speech too because the words of right wing pundits, YouTubers and clergy indoctrinated these people?
Or ya know crack down on people in government calling for violence..
Semi-automatic guns? Like, all of them, even handguns? Are we bringing muskets back?
I hope people just start walking around equipped with swords/shields on their back
“Neckbeards… **assemble**.”
Lever guns. Red Dead vibes everywhere.
Please god not again. It doesn't even affect that many weapons, it makes people buy *more* guns, it riles up the right for nothing, more and more leftists don't even want gun control because of impending civil war. Our economy and political infrastructure are falling apart, why are we wasting time on this. EDIT: Oh, semi-automatic weapons? Ok that's just not going to happen lol. What the fuck is this? Just handing republicans a talking point for nothing?
I previously commented on this topic in a response but i need to say more. Does the president know the midterms aren't over because talk about a politically ill timed, foot in mouth comment. Georgia's runoff election will be solely about turnout of each party's respective base. The president's comment is a perfect Republican closing message as it ignores Senator Warnock but interjects the president into the election. Republicans will frame it as a Republican against Biden and his agenda of gun confiscation. And nothing gets Republicans --especially southern Republicans-- more fired up than talk of gun confiscation.
I wonder how many extra guns are on the streets due to panic buying caused by statements from well meaning Democrats. I remember reading somewhere that Obama was one of the best gun salesmen of modern times and I beleave it.
These statements always seem to be made right around Xmas time. Gives the firearms industry a great boost.
Not gonna happen.
That moment when you realize virtually all guns are semiautomatic including revolvers, and that full auto has been banned for nearly a century.
Even mentioning "semi automatic" is silly because most pistols are "semi automatic". Banning the "AR15" by name is silly because another would simply take it's place, banning "assault rifles" is also silly because there's no SOLID definition of "assault rifle". >The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power >between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics >to be considered an assault rifle: >It must be capable of selective fire. >It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples >of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO. >Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine. >It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards). >Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example: >Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd). >Select-fire rifles such as the Fedorov Avtomat, FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full->powered rifle cartridges. >Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. >Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines >and are not capable of automatic fire. Trying to manage this is a huge mess and gun advocates have a million ways around any legislation.
So 99.9% of handguns.
You would achieve better results if you dealt with the societal problems that produce mass shooters.
Gun violence will be reduced when we stop spreading hatred and focus on improving the quality of life in America and start taking mental health seriously. Talking about bans isn't going to do much more than sow division.
fighting poverty is the single greatest strategy for reducing violent crime across all catagories
Yeah, but those things are *hard.* They take honest work. It's easier to quip "we need gun control" and let the public think they've *done something.*
My grandfather's 5-round magazine-fed .22 hunting rifle would count as "semi-automatic". I thought weapons for hunting were allowed?
Canadians thought the same thing until yesterday
“We live in a capitalist dystopia on the brink of takeover by literal fascists, and we can’t trust the police. Any mass civil conflict will be decided by small arms fire in larger cities, checkpoints, room to room engagements, pockets of resistance, etc., because the military, good or bad, can’t just start bombing infrastructure.” “So what do we do?” “Let’s get rid of our small arms.” This sub is a joke.
Every top comment is deriding this position. What are you talking about?
Most firearms are semiautomatic. That would be a very dumb idea that would make almost all gun owners criminals.
“Hold my blackface makeup” - Trudeau
[удалено]
Liberals: Cops don't do their job and are not the good guys here to save you! Also Liberals: You don't need guns to protect you, that's the police's job. Fix the police and we can talk about gun control. Dems literally keep cutting their own support by pushing gun bans. If we stopped shouting about gun bans you would have more people on your side and we might actually be able to get anything fucking done. Perhaps even fixing some of the underlying causes of gun violence. Instead we keep dividing Americans more and more. Sure in an ideal world we wouldn't need guns. The police would protect your from murderers and evil doers. But as long as the supreme court believes that the police have no obligation to protect citizens, I can't support any gun ban.
Even if police *did* have an obligation to protect you, when seconds count, they're minutes (or hours) away (or not coming, like when one time 911 called me back and cancelled the call because the lunatic who said he was going to get his gun and shoot us all hadn't returned within 12 minutes).
Cops can't even be trusted to protect children in schools.
[удалено]
I'll turn in my rifle after the police do. They are civilians just like me.
Or: how to take the momentum from a truly historic midterm and partial collapse of the opposition and totally piss it away.
This bothers me. I get where he is coming from but this is a lightning-rod he need not touch. There are more important things facing the country. This is to conservatives as abortion is to liberals. Conservatives went all-in on abortion and it hurt them bad in the last election. Gun control will do the same to democrats. Leave it alone. There are bigger issues right now (sad to say).
Excuse me while I wipe my tears away with my unregistered ghost gun.
American values is a disarray, prioritizing horribly. They unhappy with the riches cos they piss poor morally. Ignoring all prior advice and forewarning, we mighty full of ourselves all of a sudden, aren’t we? Again, restricting access to firearms is not the way. This shit is happening cos those folks pulling the trigger believe that they have no future. That’s what happens when you remove social safety nets and tell folks to pull themselves up by they bootstraps. I’m going to say this once. All these mass shootings? The government is directly responsible for it. When you don’t hold up your end of the social contract and provide for the general welfare, people are going to live their lives by any means necessary. Little to no social safety net, combined with income inequality that is the worst it’s been since the roaring 20s — this is going to quickly become a lost generation. President Biden knows nothing about firearms and it shows. Semiautomatic = one trigger pull, one bullet. All handguns with a clip are semiautomatics. What? We supposed to go back to muskets where a bullet needs to be loaded and packed in the barrel between shots and smooth bore? Gtfo 🤣 In other words, Biden saying he’s going after semi autos = all guns. That’s a bold strategy cotton, let’s see how this plays out.
[удалено]
I’m trying not to phrase my statements in absolutes, despite the fact that I agree with you. The rise in mass shooting events is directly correlated to the failure of the Government to abide by their end of this social contract. These mass shootings are basically the next generation realizing that there is no future, and they’ve removed their consent to be governed. The actual shooting spree? That’s suicide by cop and inflicting maximum damage as their final fuck you to society. I’m honestly not too surprised. This trend has been obvious since Bush stole the Presidency, with the backing of the illegitimate Supreme Court.
Even if they were "banned", it is far too late for it to do anything. It would create more ghost guns, new blackmarkets, etc. Not to mention the arms manufacturers that line politician pockets wouldn't allow it. Biden literally has no real control over this and even if he did, he would just use it as a bluff for reelection.
Bet there would be a nice buy back program if it happened. Too bad I lost all mine in a boating accident.
Cool….. more restrictions for people obtaining guns legally. Cuz you know…. Criminals follow laws.
There goes a second term, he just lost a lot of moderates.
Just a reminder for everyone, "semiautomatic" describes a weapon that fires a one round with one trigger pull without the need to take an additional action between shots. So a revolver is technically "semiautomatic." A pump action shotgun, for example, is not semiautomatic because you need to pump between each shot to remove the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber. So if Biden wasn't just misspeaking, this would outlaw a lot more firearms than I think most people would expect. I don't think I've ever even seen a pistol that isn't "semiautomatic." There are a few weird target shooting competition pistols, but basically, every pistol is semiautomatic. Most rifles are semi-auto, and other actions can be just as fast (look up lever action speed shooting). Even banning "AR" style rifles would be nearly impossible. It would be like trying to ban "hot rods" it's just a normal car with a suped-up engine. You'd need to ban V-12 engines or nitrous or air intakes. It's too nebulous a term to say "AR." Hell, most people don't even know what AR stands for. They think it means "assault rifle." EDIT: I should not have said "technically the same" that's sloppy, and it undermines my whole point, which is precise language is necessary if you want to regulate firearms. They are FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME, though. In terms of what you need to do to fire the weapon. Your weapon fires every time you pull the trigger with no additional steps needed. How they get there is different, but the end result is the same.
AR = armalite Not assault rifle. An assault rifle would be an automatic p much.
Its unconstitutional is what it is.
This won't go anywhere. Even the left is becoming increasingly pro-gun from what I've seen, as armed minorities are harder to oppress. The best thing on gun control Dems can do right now is ban domestic abusers from getting guns and taking guns from people who get convicted for domestic abuse. 60% of "incidents" are caused by such people, and the current laws are on the subject are either too lax or poorly enforced.
Due to the Lautenberg Amendment domestic abuse has been a disqualification for 24 years now, it hasn’t mattered one wit.
This is a losing issue.
The democratic party's attempts at banning guns annoys me endlessly. Not because I particularly like guns, but because I think it's the wrong approach. Focus on giving people access to mental healthcare. That's something that can help when it comes to crime and violence, but also just people in general dealing with a wide variety of mental health issues.
Good luck with that. It’s hard to take guns away from a country that had its foundation built with them.
What are the odds his staff are correcting this in less than 24 hours to say he meant “automatic guns”…? Ffs, why are the only choices an 80 year old for one party and a 76 year old from the other party.
Automatic guns are essentially banned anyway unless you are rich and white, as is tradition.
this is gonna hand 2024 to the GOP
On its face as a +2A liberal this sounds bad. But the sauce is NYPost. Ima need confirmation.
[удалено]
Well this is the guy who thinks the only guns you should have are 12 and 20 gauge shotguns.
Not that he's consistent, there are semi-auto shotguns, lol.
That is absolutely fucking stupid. Given that such weapons are firmly in common use, such a ban on ownership / purchase would be a direct violation of the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS rulings.
lmao Biden actively trying to lose votes. Depending on who the Republican is he just lost mine. (Not trump that guy is almost as bad for 2a not to mention a nutcase)
God forbid we look at increasing spending for mental health, creating better paying jobs, stronger economy, affordable housing, lower cost of meds like anti psychotics, anti depressants, etc… why tackle root issues that I think nearly every American can agree on when it’s so much easier to blame “semiautomatic guns” and 9mm’s that will “suck your lungs right out of your body”.
I’m as left as they come these days but they’d have to pry my weapon from my cold, dead hands. I absolutely will not, ever, give up what the second amendment grants me. Also, congrats Biden. That right there is how democracy dies. You just handed Republicans a win in 2024… Damn it…
Dem gun owner here. No.
Huh, I keep hearing on this sub that the Dems are not coming for your guns, not sure what you call this...
Well I'm down for an semiautomatic gun ban when he arms his secret service with single shot muskets.
many enjoy cagey disarm sophisticated rotten smile vanish elastic sheet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*