this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
312 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.

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Are they merely saying it? Or, ard they actually saying it? Basically, is their money behind it? Or, is this just a publicity stunt?

[–] HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I thought the NRA went bankrupt?

[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 3 points 31 minutes ago

Impossible. I sent thoughts and prayers.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 78 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It's nice to see the gun organization likes guns more than they hate trans people

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 31 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

really surprising, they've been given similar choices before and have historically fought against the 2a rights of minorities

[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 17 points 14 hours ago

Big talk. They endorsed Trump in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Elections

I'll believe it when I see it

[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 104 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Weird times when the NRA and trans people share a common goal.

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

A broken clock...

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 86 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

The NRA is the lobby group for gun manufacturers, and trans people are relatively well-armed. They would lose sales, that's literally the entirety of their reasoning.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 50 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Also, bringing attention to attempts to limit guns promotes people buying guns. So, no surprise they'd try to get publicity for this to motivate more trans people to arm themselves.

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 26 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

More trans people should arm themselves, in fairness.

[–] Quokka@quokk.au 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Having arms is rather handy.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Bear arms no less

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The NRA is owned by Putin's allies, if not directly.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Trump doesn't want armed minorities. Trust me

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, did I stutter? Trump isn't in charge, FFS. 🤦🏼‍♂️

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

No, but you seem to have forgotten that Trump is on Putin's payroll

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 38 minutes ago

Payroll? Fuckpuppets don't get paid.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

The enemy of my enemy and all that shit.

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 47 points 19 hours ago

The NRA is a lobby group for the gun industry, and maximizing revenue through gun sales.

This is a fucking golden moment for the NRA to get a flood of support (money spent on firearms) from the left.

They can use the identical rhetoric about the government being jackbooted thugs, but this time they'd be accurate instead of hyperbolic.

[–] Corngood@lemmy.ml 20 points 17 hours ago

Next mental illness: empathy

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago

2A for all. If they've got guns, we should, too

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago

Not surprising. In a civil war, the only one who wins is the person selling the guns.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 10 points 18 hours ago

Whoa whoa whoa second amendment folks! Right? RIGHT?!

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago

They have to get ahead of this. Because once it starts with trans, it'll move to another group with a bigger base. Guns gotta keep flowing for the NRA.

[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 11 points 18 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.

[–] RinseChessBacked@lemmy.ml 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

As a gun owner and enthusiast, I encourage all Americans to exercise their rights. Also, NRA can go to hell. They're just a huge money grab. I'm a GOA member myself.

[–] potato_wallrus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

How is the GOA? I've been looking at 2A groups, but I don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of maga chuds

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I would not have called that one.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Oppose as in, the same level of action against a ban that they have done for other restrictions in the past? Doubt.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, are they lobbying Congress to oppose it? Will their NRA rating decrease if they support the ban? Are they threatening to fund primary challengers? Will there be a trans speaker at the next convention saying "from my cold dead hands"?

There's a difference between a strongly worded letter responding to an immediate question of the day and actual action.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

so far the news is only that the executive branch is pursuing this, and this news is only a few days old. This is their first response to the matter.

No organization can move quickly enough to already be doing the things you suggest at this point. This is the make a statement of intent phase, which they have done.

Give it time, nothing happens immediately.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Why? We've seen their anemic responses to minority gun issues before (Philando Castile). There's no reason to assume good faith from an organization that's been a thinly veiled Republican PAC for decades now.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

agreed, but at this stage expecting more than a statement is unreasonable. no organization could be in full go mode this early.

their actions to come will be telling.

[–] Quokka@quokk.au 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

What’s the historical rate for their other responses to gun control attempts?

I suspect if they really wanted to, they could.

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Don’t forget, on the firearm purchase application it asks if you currently or have ever smoked marijuana, which would exclude you from being allowed to purchase a weapon. I’d like to believe that question answered honestly would include almost every current firearm owner…so normal hypocrisy I suppose.

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

Should ask if you drink alcohol.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago

It's currently 1:10 AM in Moscow. Wait a few hours until they get new direction from Management ....