this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
314 points (99.7% liked)

politics

25518 readers
2320 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Amid reports the Justice Department is weighing banning transgender people from owning firearms in response to last month’s mass shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic church, the National Rifle Association said Friday it will oppose any blanket rule that limits Second Amendment rights.

Their declaration comes after CNN and other outlets reported that Justice Department leadership is considering whether it can use its rulemaking authority declare that people who are transgender are mentally ill and can lose their rights to possess firearms.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 12 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I'm positive the NRA supports the transgender ban. In their past they supported the Mulford Act when the Black Panthers were copwatching.

My bet is they'll say second amendment today to save face and instead push for any changes to be only related to diagnosed mental illness. Then they'll be silent when the transgender community is thrown into that category during a second legislative pass.

[–] hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, knowing the dire straights the NRA has been in the past 10 years or so, it wouldn't be a bad time to try and rebrand. Right wingers aren't nearly as big fans of them anymore after they've rolled over on basically every gun rights case that's come up, so I'm kinda hoping this is an actual attempt at doing something.

[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Gosh, I hope you're correct. I would love to be wrong in my prediction.

[–] hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 hours ago

I'm certainly not holding my breath, but it wouldn't be a bad hail-Mary play for them

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It was a very different organization then. They really radicalized in the 80s. They became less focused on gun safety and hunters/target shooters and more focused on tacticool loonies.

[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 9 points 18 hours ago

Those tacticool loonies would support a transgender ban and the NRA supports red flag laws. Pass a red flag law and then let congress mark transgender people as red flagged. I'm sure the NRA won't loose a single tacticool loonie's membership with such an action.