this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
214 points (97.3% liked)

politics

30470 readers
1978 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Friday’s appeals court ruling in the New Jersey case goes further than a July 2024 ruling from a federal judge, who said that the state’s ban on AR-15s specifically was unconstitutional but upheld the provision barring larger magazines.

The third US circuit court of appeals said on Friday in its opinion that the state’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles it deems to be “assault firearms” and its restriction on “large capacity ammunition magazines” were unconstitutional.

New Jersey’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press that the decision is “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect”.

"Gotta maximize the body count of school children"

-These judges, probably

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago (4 children)
  1. Target gangs holistically. Change drug laws to limit their income potential. Target all levels for prosecution rather than primarily the top.
  2. Overhaul mental health laws. This is pretty hard to do. It needs to be easier to get someone committed against their will than it currently is, but it also needs to be possible to recover rights after being committed. The institutions that used to do this need to be recreated with better safeguards against abuse of patients.
  3. Increase exposure to guns at pretty much every age. This is more about accidental shootings. Handling guns in a safe environment reduces the curiosity if kids find one, shooting classes age junior high or high school age would also help reinforce this.
  4. Reduce gun free zones or require places that ban guns to accept security liability.
  5. Enforce existing laws, a significant number of shootings have warnings that were ignored by negligent or apathetic administrators or police. Both taking actions that are generally available and legal now, and ensuring accountability for failures would help.
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

Sounds great, but all drugs should be legal and regulated

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

Hard pass. You think access to guns trumps someone's right to freedom? That's crazy to me.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

The fact that you never once said “attack poverty since its reduction directly and drastically drops crime rates and improves mental health conditions” is pretty telling. Always about reactive punishment with you weirdos, never about proactive targetting of the underlying issues, and certainly never in any of the ways that we’ve seen to be actually helpful and productive.

I used to have my license here in Canada, I think guns are really cool and a day on the range is lovely, but they aren’t at all worth the damage and lives lost. Most people who really want them use the same kinda logic as I did when I was a child to try to get my mom to buy me a Wii, thinking I was clever.

At least point 5 is on the money, even if 3 and 4 are insane.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That’s literally number 1 on their comment…

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

“Target all levels for prosecution” is not “address the root causes of poverty” you fucking twat. Jesus tap-dancing Christ you’re thick.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

A gang selling drugs on every corner and intimidating anyone who doesn't like it is a pretty good cause of poverty though.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

The government has tried to eliminate poverty since the 60s there hasn't been meaningful gains in my lifetime despite increasing efforts.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

I’m sorry, did you just say that the US government has been putting real effort into eliminating poverty?

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Absolutely mind-boggling, though you probably didn’t notice as there’s clearly not much of a mind to boggle in that nigh empty cavity betwixt your ears.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 13 hours ago

Which world government has actually attempted to end poverty but then failed spontaneously without undermining the goal?

In the US all success stories that actually address poverty are super small in scale, or cut as soon as some private well-connected business can redirect public funds to their private accounts. For example the constant "welfare reforms" that have been passed over the years and of course the limiting of social security and various food assistance. Healthcare in the form of medicare is constantly redirected for administration costs of private care providers that have record profits since covid.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago

Sure they've tried touching more and more people into poverty.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 0 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Much of that is utterly unhinged. No wonder they’re called gun nuts. Increase children’s exposure to guns? Reduce gun-free zones?

Many countries have proven the best course is to put heavy penal sentences on gun violence and negligence, to severely limit the people allowed to handle guns, the quantity of guns they can have, and to tightly restrict the places and times they can handle them.

Not to spread them around more.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Teaching and exposure is the only thing that makes sense for things you expect children to find that can be dangerous. It's why Australian children are taught differently about spiders than other countries. Guns are going to be out there in the US.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk -1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Why expect children to find guns? That sounds more like a matter for removing the child from irresponsible parenting rather than education.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

It happens, we already preach safe storage and include gun locks. Exposure can make guns something that isn't as exciting, and safe handling lessons would save lives.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

The concept is that guns are so common and safety is so relaxed that finding an unlocked and loaded gun is common for a child on the US.

Obviously that is why we need to train them to shoot the commies. /s

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Much of that is utterly unhinged... Increase children’s exposure to guns?

What is your specific objection in teaching age-appropriate safe handling and use? It significantly reduces accidents.

Being against such basic gun safety training is a very, very confusing position.