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.
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
523 points (98.7% liked)
News
30467 readers
3474 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
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.
You already know the answer to that, Sarge
If they were capable of rising above their quagmire of fear and hate, they probably wouldn't be conservatives. It's not about facts or consistency. It's about feelings. Mostly fear of the out-group.
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)
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
SCOTUS likes guns when poor people shoot each other.
SCOTUS doesn't like guns when the poor shoot CEOs.
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.
load more comments
(48 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.
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?
According the language of the actual law the answer is either "no" or "not really, no". The law calls out a couple dozen aspects of firearms that precludes most of the "style" concerns. The biggest one is a limit on magazines only containing a maximum 10 rounds. While, yes, 10 rounds can still do lots of damage, it requires more frequent reloading, more chances for error, greater amount of encumbrance of the shooter. Assuming a shooter was using a gun that complied with this law, it would allow more opportunities to intervene or for people to get away.
You'd think that if someone was about to slaughter as many people as possible they wouldn't really be to worried about a 10-round mag law.
load more comments
(39 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(51 replies)
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.
Considering that the point of the Second Amendment was to enable a "well regulated militia" to maintain "the security of a free state," military-relevant weapons ought to be the ones most protected by it.
The explicit goal was to enable the populace to defend itself militarily, and you're not doing that with a handgun (at least not effectively compared to using an assault rifle).
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(3 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 ›