My opinion on gun control has changed over the years.
I used to be very anti gun. didn't really see the point of regular people having them.
Today though, me giving up my guns would be like Ukraine giving up their nukes but smaller.
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
517 points (98.7% liked)
News
30011 readers
3492 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That could have been achieved 20 years ago with logical induction on a few things and a thought experiment.
Also Ukraine gave up its nukes voluntarily , and the common opinion was that the Cold War is over and nobody is going to need weapons, except for fighting criminals and terrorists. Russia didn't ask for Ukraine's nukes so persistently. USA did, but not everything USA demanded in those years was given.
So the analogy is very fine, it was also understood to be a mistake to give Russia those nukes even before the first Maidan. Somewhere around second Chechen war.
Humanity is stupid.
Seriously, no way. I'm giving up my guns now that we have brown coats.
The current laws surrounding guns in the US is probably going to make the inventable next civil war a lot worse in terms of deaths.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(38 replies)
Headline is misleading. SCOTUS turned the case down, they didn't "allow" anything and there's still potential for another case to be brought before the court.
Honestly, it’s clear SCOTUS cares as much about precedent as your average billionaire cares about the livability of the planet 100 years from now so hearing that they’re not going to listen to a case like this is refreshing
load more comments
(1 replies)
Actually a bit disappointed in this. I mean, NOW of all times you think keeping "military grade" gear out of regular citizens hands is a good idea.
Well, yeah. NOW of all times is exactly when the fascists would want to disarm the populace.
I genuinely wonder if all the people I've had tell me Obama and Biden are going to ban all guns/they're coming for our guns are going to have a moment of self reflection when the fascists in power come for their guns.
Or is it going to be a "only white people with no unnatural hair coloring and presenting as their birth cirtificate sex are allowed to have guns"
Take the guns first and due process later
This was 2018.
So on your question on if they will have a moment of self reflection, I'm going to go with a no.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Right? My tin foil thoughts immediately went to them upholding states’ rights on this because they know which states will ban and which won’t.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So this just bans that "style" of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn't look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead? I don't really get what this accomplishes other than inconveniencing people who already own one of the guns this prohibits.
Several northeast states passed kneejerk legislation of this type in the wake of Sandy Hook. Common sense gun legislation that provides a pathway to purchase for those without red flags without violating the privacy of owners would be nice, but neither Democrats or Republicans are capable of passing any such legislation. Republicans want no regulation at all while Democrats want to score points in a punitive culture war.
load more comments
(92 replies)
I'm for certain gun regulation, I'm not for an outright ban however.
Consider these two events:
-
Before the holocaust the jews had to surrender in their weapons
-
before the nakba, the same happened to the Palestinians, they had to surrender their weapons.
Being able to have weapons to protect yourself from everyday threats but also for if things go south is very important.
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you'll need weapons.
Consider these two events
I don't think that's what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
More likely it was California man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home, charged with attempted murder of justice
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons
I guess. But you also need widespread popular support. Randos with guns acting independently aren't any better at repelling fascist governments than unarmed protestors.
What American liberals lack isn't merely guns, it's militias.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I think having weapons is purely a stress reduction tool, similar to xanax. Makes you calm to have them around, but when you need them they won't help much. Incredibly risky things to have around in any sort of quickly usable manner as well.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Single issue ammosexual voters allowed all our other rights to be stripped, watered down, limited and degraded while they deified their gun fetish.
Leopards are indiscriminate.
I've heard statements before the "assault weapons" bans are pretty weak in their description and can easily be skirted with mild modifications rendering a gun no longer meeting the definition. I got curious what Maryland's law text said. I found it here: link
I'll say that the law as written is very detailed with its criteria for what is banned including even minor items like have a threaded barrel such as one would need to mount a flash suppressor. They also go through many iterations of descriptions of magazine size, detachabilty, and thumb hole position.
Just curiosity in the spirit of my original question (guns that would be legal), but still likely run afoul of the spirit (but not the letter of this law), I found this one:
Franklin Armory F17
Its rare apparently, but "the Franklin Armory F17 is the only semi-auto 17 Winchester Super Mag available today."
"assault weapons" are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that's the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it's not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
why don't they just ban semi-auto rifles? for home defense you can use a handgun, for hunting you can use a bolt action rifle of a pump action shotgun. you eliminate the bump stock loophole and it becomes harder to mow down a crowd.
Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you're hiking, by scaring them away with noise... I can't really think of much else)
Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They're not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category "semi auto rifle" covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they're not scary looking enough so there's no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it's useless and doesn't actually get at anything that can make a difference. It's all theater.
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who could have supplied the fourth vote needed to add the case to the court’s docket, issued a statement saying the question was significant and could soon warrant review but that he hoped additional opinions from lower courts could assist the justices on the issue. He wrote that the Supreme Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”
—NYT
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›