this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
407 points (99.5% liked)
politics
27418 readers
4673 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Anyone else remember the wild accusations all these years about how tHe LiBrUlS wAnNa TaKe Ur gUnS!
But wait. Anyone noticing how it's not the "libruls" shitting themselves right now, but the NRA and right-wing 2A groups who want no part of this new narrative?
For anyone paying attention, this was always the right wing plan. Always.
Can’t wait until Krusty Gnome is hanging around at the Hauge. You think she will be asking for her right to Habeas Corpus then?
Yes.
This is one of the main reasons people don't vote blue. They care a lot about their firearms. If the red start going after them, grab some popcorn because things will go down. Maybe this is whats needed to get them to open their eyes.
Disagree. They're fine with it if the person doing it claims to be red.
Guarantee no die hard 2FA MAGAt changes their mind over any of this.
Trump voters have literally lost their business, their jobs, have had to relocate due to lifestyle collapse, and they still say voting for him is better than the alternative.
“The dems want to take away your firearms!”
“That may or may not be true, but the GOP WILL just kill you and label you a terrorist if they find out you have a firearm.”
That's been true for a long time in police interactions. Possessing a firearm in public alone has been justification for detainment, arrest and use of force including lethal force countless times.
Yes, but now it’s true for white male conservatives who just happen to be in the right place at the wrong time.
Not an equality they’re used to.
Yeah, I doubt very much this will matter to them. See: all the campaigning and crying they did over Epstein and now how they are good with covering that shit up, or making insane executes. The hypocrisy does not matter to them at all
I disagree. I really think you are underestimating how much Americans, especially American men, especial rural men who hunt and don't like being bossed around by a government that's far away, want to buy whatever weapons they want without extra regulation.
For many people, they vote just based on the NRA's selection. If the Democrats became a more pro-gun party, they would gain a substantial amount of power in the US.
They can now if they want to.
The left has always been pro firearm regulation. Not removing them.
Fox News did a marvelous job at convincing them that anyone to the left of them was a pacifist and wanted no weapons.
Like you talk to any hardline 2A supporter, and they will straight up agree with you that some people really shouldn't have firearms.
Maybe, or they will just make it political: registered dems can’t own guns or something else insane. I guess we will see, I would have thought oedophilia would be the line, but if they are ok with that and suddenly 2a is the breaking point …. I mean I’m disgusted but if we get there we get there.
Orange man's "faith" office is all crickets nowadays.
The victim's gun was in a waistband holster and an ICE agent took it before the other one shot him. The blatant lying is wild
Don't tread on me people getting treaded on harder
This is one of those "second amendment people" that the felon in chief liked to talk about.
Good ol' No-Evidence Noem. "Just take my word for it, Cricket practically asked me to shoot him in the face with that shotgun. He was a Domestic ~~Terrier~~ Terrorist. Anyone who pisses me off is a Domestic Terrorist."
Oh shit they scurred they about to go after gun rights.
I have always held the moral belief that no citizen should be allowed to legally own a firearm. That doesn’t mean we should just ignore current law.
The point being that there's a wide range of opinions on guns that should all agree being armed under current laws shouldn't be a death sentence.
That too. I don’t think anyone abiding by the law should be killed. I agree. Let me be clear.
Why do you believe no citizen should be allowed to legally own a firearm?
I am against firearms in general.
Fair enough. The modern world would probably be an overall better place if firearms didn't exist.
But they do exist. And you don't want the fascist to be the only ones who have them.
Well the fascists AND non-fascists have them in America. Not seeing how its making any difference.
2A was specifically written to help prevent a tyrannical government.
Hasn't worked.
They're not magic talismans, you need to actually use them on tyrants. Fire Extinguishers don't ward off fires by just existing.
Yes, that's the point.
It was never claimed that it would work overnight. You can't just plead the 2nd as if it were the 5th and , flash, everything is all democracy again. Organized and individual actions, both, will likely be necessary.
All the Second does for us is ensure that we weren't disarmed at this point. One thing I can guarantee is that nobody is going to be discussing any plans for retaliation on this forum or any like it.
Every day we get closer to the tipping point. Arm yourself with a firearm and the knowledge on how to use it safely.
If it's safe for you to have a firearm.
I think a lot of people skip that step.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The anti-fascist having a gun doesn't seem to have helped him in any way. Just giving the fascists a talking point for demonizing him after the fact.
They find talking points and demonize anyways.
They'll make up any excuse. This one is bullshit like the rest but this excuse is one that has been the law since 1791. People seem to really care about it and previous SCOTUSs have made very clear that no laws can infringe on that even when it's to prevent harm.
I feel so funny on this because I want to defend a right under attack by the rump admin but also it's a right I want limited in many ways... Just not right now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(15 replies)
I think the need for armed citizens to fight tyranny is real but it's also true that guns are very dangerous and cause a lot of problems in society.
My best solution is autonomous community armories. What do you think of that idea?
videos show federal agents apparently discovering and removing during the altercation that led to his death. Videos do not appear to show Pretti holding the weapon during that confrontation.
He died because he's the kind of person ICE fears most: someone who was willing to defend themselves, and knew how to do so legally.
He wasn't defending himself, he was curled up on the ground covering himself as he was pulled, pushed, and BEATEN in every which way. Once the gun was discovered and pulled the agent in the green sweater literally pulled out his pistol and started shooting.
Clearly once the gun was removed from the altercation, it was now safe to kill him. What if they accidentally shot the gun and it caused the shot to ricochet or they hit the ammo clip and caused those to ignite/fire.
Finding and removing the gun made it safe to proceed.
Push this angle, deconvert some magats.
Remember, Trump is the one who said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second." Way back in 2018.
What due process?
You won't deconvert them, they hate "teh libs" enough they'll take brutality before admitting they were wrong.
view more: next ›