this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
362 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19047 readers
4647 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Any of you anti-gun people have second thoughts hearing shit like this?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I'm mostly in favor of gun ownership, but unless I'm allowed to own RPGs, bombs, and other similar equipment then I'm not going to be able to do much against the military with it. Gun ownership is for self-defense, not fighting the military like so many right wing nuts dream about. The only real option if fighting the military happens is aid from outside or taking the military's equipment. Both of these do not require prior ownership of weapons. Alternatively, knowledge of bomb making would be another tool, and does not require prior ownership, though this knowledge is controlled already and not defended by typical gun-rights organizations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Everyone looks at extremes.

Yeah, a populace armed with AR-15s and Glocks can't fight bombers, but when a government reaches the point where bombers are being used against the population you'll also have a military split, so there will be heavy equipment on both sides.

Imagine something smaller in scale, like if the governor of Texas decided to start execution of liberals while Trump was President. Trump probably wouldn't directly take part, but also wouldn't send in the military to stop the governor.

That's where small arms for civilians becomes relevant.

They're also relevant because they're distributed. With 100 million+ armed households, there's no safe way to be a tyrant.

Trump was almost killed by 1 person who planned poorly. If there were millions of armed people moved to that level of violence it would be impossible to govern without committing the kind of atrocity that would cause a military split/coup.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The gun people are expecting the guns to be pointed at the libs. They're all for it.

They are absolutely clueless that any dictator strips guns from people because they can't bear any threat.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago

I am gun people....I'm not point my shit at Americans.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US is spending $1.7T over the next thirty years to completely overhaul its nuclear arsenal.

But don't worry, I've got a Beretta in my holster and a shotgun under the bed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You forget about Vietnam? Isis is also kicking around still too which you have to know about seeing how recent that one was.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

It's not worth the argument. They won't understand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

If you haven't been targeted by the police for running your mouth at them then who are you lecturing exactly ?

Why are you attacking your allies ? Not everyone should have a fucking gun, mate.