• bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has been said about many issues in the past.

    Which issues? Civil Rights? Gay marriage?

    Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn’t the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren’t going to vote these people out based on the status quo.

    Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you’re not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.

    • farcaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If it’s popular, why wouldn’t the Democrats keep fighting for it?

      Whether it will realistically happen anytime soon, yeah I’d say the odds are very low.

      But let’s not just give up as it can’t ever happen.

      Also “political theater” is like half of actual politics, so don’t knock it too easily :P

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the worst political theater. It makes it look like something is being done when it isn’t. Gun sales go up and liberals feel good. More kids die.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The solution is for law enforcement to properly enforce the existing laws that could have stopped countless shootings already.

          My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me. America is quite safe to live in for the majority of us.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me.

            Oh, well as long as it is unlikely to affect you…

            I mean illegal abortion is unlikely to affect me, so why should I give a shit, am I right?

            • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s really a bad comparison, because you’re arguing for the point of taking away rights from Americans, by making reference to a right that was taken away (since it was never properly added to the Constitution). I support all rights for all Americans - we should all have the rights to bear arms and to privacy + bodily autonomy.

              So instead of arguing to take away more rights, you should be arguing to add more rights. Lobby for the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy instead.

                • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Of course I do, and you should too. You should care about all the rights of Americans, just as I do and AS I ALREADY MENTIONED.

                  I have already addressed everything you mentioned previously, so now you’re just pissing in the wind.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me

                    Your words.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m afraid at this point there’s no legislation that will survive the Supreme Court. The next realistic move is to mirror the federalist society. Get enough judges appointed with the idea that the second does not protect personal gun ownership and reach a critical state.

          If I could waive a magic wand without breaking the character of the US, we’d ban external magazines, have universal background checks, and stop federal funds from going to states that don’t send information to the National Instant Check System. There’s so much low hanging fruit. But even when SCOTUS wasn’t busy boofing beers the Brady Campaign gave us shit laws designed to harass people, not reduce violence.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Frustrating the reload slows down active shooters. Solidifying the NICS means criminals can’t just go to the next state over. And Universal background checks takes away the secondhand market from criminals as well.

              A program to groom judges on this just like the conservatives did with Roe V Wade will do the most in the long term because we’ll be able to have laws based on the actual amendment, not just a few words of it.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes…because no active shooters have ever made plans…and no active shooters have ever not been flagged correctly when they were prohibited already…and no one buys drugs on the black market cause that’s illegal…and no one makes straw purchases which are already illegal.

                RvW needs to be signed into a law, not used as a bargaining chip for votes for Democrats. They need to use their political capital to make it a federal law.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This isn’t a good faith argument. The logical extent is that we can’t stop every criminal so we should have no laws at all.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We already have laws for these things you listed… literally murder is illegal…so is buying or owning a firearm and being a prohibited person…you gonna make it double illegal? I’m not the one arguing in bad faith. You are