Democrats vote against gun control in surprise move
Democrats vote against gun control in surprise move
Hawaii state Democrats voted against a gun control measure which would ban assault rifles from the state.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29086947
They’ll need it for the civil war
I don't think the Civil War is gonna be Maui lobbing 5.56mm at Oahu...
This.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like "assault-style" weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an "assault-style" weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define "assault-style" weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here's a bit more on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there's already several bans on "assault-style" weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won't do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
What in hell is an "assault pistol" please ?
I think we all stopped charging the enemy waving a pistol during WW1 didnt we ? This feels like something from a Blackadder episode.
It's referenced in the newsweek article. I read the wiki which says Hawaii have defined it, but the wiki links dont actually go to a definition.
The vast majority of pistols sold are semi auto, and they all have a pistol grip which, as I understand it are 2 of the main characteristics used to define assault weapon in the US
Confused foreigner.
The confusion is why the assault weapons ban in the 90's failed. They did not specify semi-automatic handgun, revolver, or pistol grip short barrel shotgun. You are correct. "Assault pistol" is extremely vague. In my opinion, politicians do this to appease the NRA and the gun nuts while completely disregarding what responsible gun owners are asking for. Most responsible gun owners want the loopholes closed. The politicians can just shrug and say "Well we tried!" Or use it as an excuse to kick incumbents out that didn't kiss the ring.
Most of this theater is at the federal level. The state level is what will make the difference which is why I encourage people to check the firearms sections of their laws.
Each state has their own definition of what an assault rifle is, and that's what decidedes what's banned. (Bans are by state, and most have no ban.)
For some its a pistol grip, a detachable mag, and one of like 3 other features. Two or more of those and its an assault rifle.
Pistols are regulated seperately.
If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc
That's how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it's considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
It does turn into a game of "one-up" but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.
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.
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.)
Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…
In that case, let's ban them
- Republicans most likely
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.
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.
Smart move.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
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.
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.
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.
rEaChInG aCrOsS tHe AiSlE
Love a vague headline that tells me nothing about how to think.
Edit: I meant but about how to think, oh well.
Excuse me did you just ASK to be told how to think?
newsweek is a right-wing rag that promotes conspiracy theories
EDIT: here are some details:
In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had "taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders" since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine's elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer's opinion section and podcast.