politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
“let an entire country have guns. what could go wrong?”
where was the “good guy with gun” to save the day? excluding professional trained security members
Well, in some sense, that's precisely what the Secret Service was in this case -- the proverbial good guy with a gun.
I think the fringe 2A people basically want a world that is some combination of the wild west from movies and a militarized society filled with bodyguards and escorts.
Note: they all always assume they're a protagonist or antagonist in this hypothesized world, i.e., they're always the person with bodyguards, a body guard, or an outlaw with a gun moving through the tumbleweeds. They're never all the random people killed along the way.
I literally said excluding professionals.
That doesn't mean they can't discuss it Jesus Chris Lemmy simmer down. This isn't couples therapy
🙄
doesn't that render the whole question as nonsense? do you think there's an expectation (among the 2a idiots) out there that good guys with guns are immediately emptying clips at anyone who is bad and also has a gun? how would they know?
this is the secret service's job, and they performed it. doing the "good guy with a gun" bit is so obviously out of place here, no matter what you think of guns or trump or the secret service. save it for situations where it actually makes sense.
Ah. I think you have entirely missed my sarcasm of “good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun”.
Most countries have armed security/police without also having a heavily armed population. Plenty of comments of “if you ban guns only bad guys have guns” nonsense.
.. ok? Im sorry you dont understand I guess