- cross-posted to:
- liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29086947
You must log in or register to comment.
They’ll need it for the civil war
Or…this is just another cynical ploy to appeal to the right, since they seem incapable of moving left on any subject.
At this point I think we should upgrade it to Ratchet Law.
It’s because the politicians want the people to protect them, after they have consistently failed to protect the people.
Oh no…. Reverse psychology wouldn’t work on them … but reverse reverse psychology might work on the swing voters
I don’t think so. It happened in the Hawaii state legislature. They don’t run on the same incentives over there.
Hawaii’s Democratic Party spans from the left to the right. The only people who get elected as Republicans are the truly insane.
But generally, Hawaii supports strict gun laws, so this seems like a surprising result.
It’s because it’s not the issue, nor should time be wasted on that right now. We can argue policy later. We need to unite and get the traitor out of office
That’s literally the only garbage the Democrats have been running on for almost a decade now. “Don’t think about policy…just focus on getting the bad guy out of office.” If that’s such a great strategy, then why do things keep getting worse?
Maybe if we actually deal with the underlying policy problems, we wouldn’t have the issue of fascism taking over, in the first place.
Sorry. You’re wrong.
Focusing on this stupidity is what hurt the Dems. They keep going to the same wall Wich dried up a long time ago. Focus on the issue at hand
Lol! How did Democrats focus on policy?
This.
The Republicans are actually secret geniuses, they are doing all this authoritarian stuff to trick the left into embracing guns.
Nah.
I don’t think the Civil War is gonna be Maui lobbing 5.56mm at Oahu…
What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
Why are you using a term as vague as “assault rifle”?
Because it’s the term used in the article we’re discussing. It’s not vague, assault rifle has a pretty solid definition. It’s essentially a select fire rifle that uses rounds smaller than machine guns but larger than pistols.
The bill provides the exact definition they use for assault rifle which appears to be more strict than federal law. So, no, it is not pointless.
I bought one last week lol
Say hi to the ATF for me lol
Yeah, oof. They’re probably just confused by “assault rifle/assault weapon” and bought an AR-15 or something (in which case, imo this new gun owner is obligated to spend some time learning more about guns). But even if that’s true, saying “I just bought an assault rifle last week” is going to get some attention from whichever agencies in DC are monitoring Lemmy lol
AR-15 rifles also covers select fire variants. The original AR-15 made by Eugene Stoner was select fire only. The assault rifle/assault weapon distinction is functionally meaningless, and really only applies to the military. Oh, you’ll get fudds that will claim otherwise, but they’re also the ones claiming that a 1911 is the best gun ever because “TwO WorLD wARs!”.
No, the 1911 is the best because it fits in the hand. #singlestackgang. Also because it’s “cool” and pretty darn reliable.
The original AR-15 made by Eugene Stoner was select fire only
Sure, but that’s not the one people are buying today. I’d bet this is another case of someone mistakenly believing that the AR stands for assault rifle.
The assault rifle/assault weapon distinction is functionally meaningless, and really only applies to the military.
I disagree. Assault rifle has one standard legal definition at the federal level. It’s functional in that it makes select fire guns effectively illegal for your average citizen. Assault weapon can apply to nearly anything because has been defined by a multitude of varying laws in different states and municipalities mostly targeting aesthetic features.
Oh, you’ll get fudds that will claim otherwise
…like the ATF
You know the A in AR stands for a company called Armalite right?
True, but when the United States Armory and Arsenal at Springfield, MA was in operation and evaluating rifles, they used the term Assault Rifle in their photos.
Were they burst and full auto variants?
The last photo I saw was HK G-3 produced in Spain by CEMTE and it was full auto. I believe the 3 round burst was developed during the 1980’s for the M-16A2 and I am not sure when the Warsaw Pact developed for their AK-74 rifles.
No you didn’t.
What do you mean? Assault rifles are perfectly legal
Assault rifles are full auto or burst fire. They’re not legal for civilians without a specific form of FFL, which is difficult and expensive to get. Even with an FFL you will probably run into problems with state and local laws. That’s why you’ll pretty much only see assault rifles at places like the ones outside Vegas where they let you pay to fire one for a few minutes.
I think they call em “assault weapons” and they’re basically anything high capacity and semi auto and black and scary. Basically no recent discourse about assault whatever has actually referred to burst or auto weapons.
I think you’re probably right that those are what the law is targeting, and Newsweek is simply lying in this article.
I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.
The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:
“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle
(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;
(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:
(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;
(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;
(D) A flash suppressor;
(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(F) A bayonet mount;
(G) A grenade launcher; or
(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.
More likely they have no idea what the difference is
Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned after a mere $200 application to the ATF.
The real hurdle is the closed nature of the registry creates artificial scarcity and pushes the price of the gun itself up.
But, assuming you have the money, it is a straightforward process no more complicated or time consuming than legally owning an SBR.
Smart move.
Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…
Do you think Americans have it in them to actually do that?. I think when tyranny comes knocking at their door, many Americans will comply and many will even want to join them, maybe some isolated pockets go full Waco, TX on them but the goverment has spent trillions of American tax money on building weapons of war that they’ve used on foreign civilian populations for decades, all they have to do is point it inwards and then it doesn’t matter how many Glocks you’ve got does it.
In that case, let’s ban them
- Republicans most likely
A gun control measure in Hawaii failed by a narrow vote this week, after several state Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against it.
The defeat of Senate Bill 401, which sought to ban assault-style rifles in the state, shows an unexpected division in a party typically unified on gun control.
This is one thing I hate about democrats. They barely swing a few undecided voters and throw it all away by bringing up an item that many undecided voters take as a single-issue subject.
Gun issues are a losing topic.
Focus efforts on anything else (healthcare, housing, etc) and gun violence will drop.
Funny how providing people with the things they need stops violence.
History and human nature says otherwise. There will always be violence of some kind. Someone always wants more.
Sure. But the violence decreeces when resources for each are plentiful. Its just how need and desperation work in the animal kingdom. Less competition equals less violence
Preventing all violence was never the goal, because everyone understands there will always be some violence. But making sure people aren’t struggling to survive can greatly reduce the amount of violence happening.
Totally agree. Gun issues need to be off the table entirely until sanity has returned to government. Dems need to focus on making normal government operations and improving living standards as exciting as the threat of taking over Canada.
Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents? Because this issue that you don’t like and because of that assume that massive numbers of true independents don’t like seems to have added up to jack shit as far as exercising those cherished rights to actually do ANYTHING in response to unmistakeable tyranny.
And I’m not even talking about starting a hot rebellion. The MAGA shitstains armed up and showed the colors over school boards and vaccines, but actual assaults on democratic constitutional order and this supposedly critically large non-MAGA gun population can’t even be arsed to do anything. You’ve got a hobby and a fantasy that when things get Really Serious, you’ll be the hero, but that time is always somehow not actually happening, because it’s only supposed to be a fantasy.
I don’t speak for all non-republican gun owners, but I don’t have any fantasy about being a hero with a gun, either for self defense or for defense against a tyrannical government.
The point is that the issue of gun control doesn’t gain any votes for democrats. The best thing that any of them have said is when Harris said “yeah I carry.” Had she continued with saying she thinks there’s enough gun laws as-is, and talked about enforcement, and other methods to reduce violence there might have been a few votes turned her way.
This is the same argument as bringing on the Cheneys or throwing minorities under the bus. Just because someone is a Democratic voter doesn’t mean they’re in the bag and all policy should be crafted for what you think are the “gettable” votes in the middle. And I know anti-gun independents. Don’t confuse your personal preferences with being a silent majority. Gun control polls with majority support.
Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents?
Everywhere, in plain sight, not talking about it on heavily surveiled social media.
Not doing anything. I don’t want a status report, I just don’t believe that this huge group of tyranny-resistors is actually there and none of them are organizing shows of force to put the government on notice, but that you’re all just waiting for something more serious to actually decide it’s time for the well regulated militia to hit the streets. Maybe you’ll be out there when the shooting war actually starts, but I’m not even confident in that.
What are you doing? Why do you think owning a gun obligates anyone to put themselves in the Trump regime’s crosshairs?
It’s their whole excuse for why protecting their hobby is important. When it matters they’ll convert from fetishists to patriots. They finally have their chance to prove that all the dead children was worth it. If that’s not happening then their deadly hobby is just a hobby, to be regulated and restricted like drag racing or fireworks.
You seem to be under the impression that gun owners are a monolith. There are lots of leftist gun owners you never see because they keep it on the down low.
No I’m not, and that’s the whole point. Most right-wing gun owners are just hobbyists too, but some bleeding edge of them showed up when their side declared “tyranny” was afoot (aka vaccine requirements or woke schoolboards). If there’s some deep well of good guy gun owners that will (some day) make all the dead kids worth it, you’d expect some bleeding edge to be showing the colors, declaring the stakes, and putting the government on notice.
So good to see more people understanding this. Spend the political capital on shit that will actually reduce our violence, vs virtue signaling to a ever shrinking group of anti-2a voters.
Ronnie Reagan and George Bush Sr are notorious gun control freaks and they are GOP. Yes, improving labor rules and public services would relieve the stress on the Americans reducing violence. No wonder the USA experiences so many “going postal” murders.
While the proposed bill in the article was a poorly-defined measure, I object to the idea that gun control will always be losing. It’s one of The Onion’s reliable jokes; “No way to present this, says only nation where this kind of thing happens regularly”. And that’s not because healthcare and housing are perfectly solved issues everywhere else.
I’ve spoken with several gun owners in my state who are in perfect agreement that many do not respect the weight those objects have, and follow no safety rules - and would like to see sane regulations on model production and better background check systems, based specifically around how the most gun crimes are committed. We’re just in a ridiculous spiral where the right keeps complaining Democrats want to take away all guns, and lawmakers keep aiming for these vague “assault bans” that would accomplish nothing.
I hate seeing articles like this because it tees you, the commenter, up for assuming that the entire DNC decided to drop their gun control policy.
This is just for Hawaii. Hawaii voted against this.
Newsweek is such a dogshit source to be talking about in forums and threads because they write everything assuming that Democrats are a perfectly unified group, all with identical motivations, reasoning, and agendas. We know they’re not, but NW can show you a ding in a shoulder plate, and tell you the entire suit of armor is equally vulnerable.
They do it almost every election cycle though.
You say that as if this vote result was a bad thing.
Not at all. I don’t know anything about Hawaii’s internal politics, so the only thing I focused on was Newsweek’s misleading headline and article writing.
Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.
Want to drive a car?
New driver?
Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.
Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.
Need to use the big equipment?
Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.
Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.
Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.
This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.
And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc ……there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.
But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?
They’d say you are crazy.
But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.
I understand why you say this, but Americans have a right to bear arms, not vehicles. The only reason for all the controls on vehicles is because they are a privilege, not a right.
You should be allowed to bear arms without bullets, in a small “right to bear arms zone” far outside of any town, in a desert, with a bunch of “law enforcement” (chuckle) types pointing guns at you while you bear them. Fair is fair.
We have a right to free political speech too, anytime anywhere. But we dont have those rights anymore outside of “free speech zones” far from anywhere people will see you, and you will be threatened and physically abused and your cars vandalized by cops if you go to one. So cry me a river on your “constitutional” “right to bear arms”.
Americans have the right to bear arms just as much as they have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre — it’s a right that can be regulated and both already are, one needs more regulation, but people don’t seem to understand.
The law can be whatever we collectively want it to be. The entire point of having Amendments is that the Constitution was supposed to be a living document that we would refine and improve over time.
No bro the constitution was 100% perfect and infallible from day 1 and can never ever be altered
/s
As the founders intended, we have a right to bear a single-bore muzzle-loaded flint-lock. Anything more than that should really be a separate right.
And you should also be required to regularly attend militia training if you have any kind of weapon.
That’s simply incorrect. Nothing in there is stopping gun control laws from being implemented.
Permits are already a thing in some states, and certain individuals are prohibited from owning guns.
The right is far from unlimited, even though many seem to think so.
A lot of countries do this and it works. Japan has a variant of this which, while certainly not perfect, is the reason when Abe was assassinated the dude had to basically DIY his own blunderbuss rather than being able to just unload.
This makes me kinda concerned tbh but nonetheless its a welcome surprise. The only bigger warning sign would be pritzker lifting the assault weapon ban in my state. That to me would signal they know something is gonna happen.
Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn’t white so yeah stay strapped
Great point. When the country has fallen to fascism is not the time to implement gun control.
rEaChInG aCrOsS tHe AiSlE
Hawaii has taken a real turn for the worse.
Hawaii was a sovereign kingdom that was invaded and taken over by America, and the indigenous population massacred until they fell into line. You’ve got a lot of nerve to talk down to an indigenous people who are keeping their options for defending themselves open under the fascist rule of a white supremacist.
Love a vague headline that tells me nothing about how to think.
Excuse me did you just ASK to be told how to think?
newsweek is a right-wing rag that promotes conspiracy theories
A terrible publication and source.
yet very successfully at the SEO game, and a very common source linked to across Lemmy.
As usual, imprecise language around firearms and related laws.
It starts with the correct (but nebulous) usage of “assault-style rifles”, and then just reverts to plain “assault rifles” for the rest of the article. By definition, assault rifles must be capable of selective fire (burst/full-auto), and without even looking up any numbers I can guarantee “Assault rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s are the types of guns which have been used in some of the most high-profile school shootings” is not an accurate claim if they’re talking about the US. It’s also not accurate to say that assault rifles are currently legal in HI.
He supported the bill saying its prohibition on the number of bullets a gun can fire at a time would limit fatalities in the event of a shooting, and would allow the police to get to the scene before more people could be killed.
Talking about the “number of bullets” gives the impression they are referring to selective fire, but if that was the case it realistically wouldn’t have an appreciable effect on the time saved for police to get to the scene (and then idly stand around if occurring in TX) – think along the lines of 2 seconds to mag dump vs. 15 seconds. The quote makes more sense if talking about magazine capacity which is usually talked about in relation to “assault weapon” restrictions.
said the bill would criminalize existing owners of assault rifles, per Hawaii News Now.
She said: "Now, by their mere possession, because we decide to pass this bill, we decide to label them as criminals and that to me, it’s unethical and should not be tolerated by this body.Legal select fire firearms are already exceedingly rare across the US due to federal laws, I suspect the quotes are talking about owners of standard semi-auto rifles with 16"+ length barrels and not specially licensed armorers or law enforcement with exemptions to make/own actual assault rifles.
We use different words to mean different things, and being sloppy about it in important subjects is extra frustrating to say the least.
I completely disagree with banning rifles and pistols. However, I am all for intensive background checks, psychological tests, firearm classes and tests, mandatory storage safety with inspections and licensing classifications depending on what you want to buy. The Europeans do this correctly and the US allows lunatics to own firearms.
Those will be used against letting leftist get guns.
“If you’ve smoked weed in the last 5 years or have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I’m afraid I can’t sell this to you.”
We joke, but Ronald Reagan signed California’s gun control laws because the Black Panthers had guns and minorities having guns scares conservatives
mandatory storage safety with inspections
Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
As part of getting an FFL, you effectively waive that right; the ATFE can drop by the address on the license, unscheduled, for inspection, and if you don’t let them in, your FFL we be immediately rescinded, and nearly any judge will approve a search warrant for that location over the phone in minutes.
We could do the same for individual owners, just like dealers, and there would be supporting precedent. (But, it would certainly be subject to judicial (including SCOTUS) review.)
That kind of regulation wouldn’t even survive a 9th Circuit en banc. Existing law governing industry is not “supporting precedent” to force private citizens to waive one right just to enjoy another in their own home.
What surprise?
Aren’t Democrats like the backup voting option for Republicans, always?
