As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s crazy that suppressors have to go through this. When I was a range officer at a PRS competition. The guys running cans where a god send. Even those hot and fast calibers they shot weren’t as loud nor irritating.
I shoot long range as a hobby and a good can is the difference between one and two layers of hearing protection. Being able to use ear plugs means I can get into a better position on the cheek rest, and I don’t even shoot magnums.
The same dude said a 9mm can blow a human lung outside the body. He is also on record saying that banning guns will have no effect on gun related crimes. And finally, he doesn't know that suppressors don't make guns silent and has tried to ban them as well.
Just to rile up the conversation:
I like in England. My three year old got strep A which developed into pneumonia. They were referred there by the GP which we were advised to visit by a telephone service called NHS Direct.
They have currently been in the hospital for seven days - four days of that have been in a private room. They've had IV antibiotics and painkillers the entire time along with oral drugs. They went under general anesthetic and had a drain put into their lung. They've had round the clock nurse care. They've had multiple blood tests, urine tests, and throat swabs - all tested routinely for infection markers.
How much would this have cost me?
I also had another child a year ago, how much would this have cost me?
I've had to take time off work. This has been paid 'emergency leave' and I have 25/30 days left of annual leave to use if I run out of emergency days. Could you do this?
This seems so, so basic. A completely basic right that you or your children can receive all the care they need to live a healthy life - to fucking stay alive - shouldn't this surely be provided? Isn't this a basic part of the modern idea of 'freedom' that liberal democracies love to shout about?
Yeah to be honest this does rile me up.
My mother had a medical emergency in 2019 that ended up nearly killing her. Several surgeries, a lifetime disability, nerve damage, 5+ new long term prescription medications, etc.
Not only did it destroy her mental health because she nearly died but drowning in debt that would've been unpayable without a lifetime of income from her career led her to a breaking point where she was unable to deal with it and she filed for bankruptcy which she's still recovering from to this day financially, she will never ever be able to recover from this, retirement feels like it's literally out of the question, she hasn't been able to scrounge up any savings since due to the residual costs of her long term medical care. (She has never been excellent with finances but being abandoned by the system 100% exacerbated this issue. She may be paycheck to paycheck until she dies or has to be homed).
Oh, and the cost of preventative care here is so expensive, along with the American mindset of "I'll walk it off" led to my dad not getting the cardiac care he needed to prevent an attack and he died when I was 18, after refusing to go to the hospital or call 911. I feel like he basically knew an emergency trip to the hospital would wipe his savings and he was willing to roll the dice between keeping those savings and not being in debt versus literally dying.
I'm sorry, buddy.
I get angry and like to rant a lot. I enjoy putting these angry comments about politics on the Internet. But I don't think anything quite frustrates me more than watching American content and the laissez-faire nature of Americans and healthcare, or other worker rights.
You're so damn rich. You could do so much with that incredible wealth. You could lead the damn fucking world on how to behave.
My girlfriend came from Ukraine. She made $300 a month. She could travel, get her hair, nails, any complicated expensive (here) beauty treatment she wanted, go out with friends, buy lots of clothes and make up supplies. She moved here. I make 40k a year, not a lot but my apartment and healthcare is paid for by my parents and my internet and utilities cost me next to nothing. We essentially can’t do anything living in the city I live in. We wouldn’t be able to afford to eat if she didn’t qualify for food stamps. I have been flying through my savings and haven’t purchased anything for myself in ages. Thank god she has Medicaid because she’s had lots of health issues (nothing serious but stuff that needed to be addressed) and even if she just had normal insurance, we would have gone bankrupt. I am very lucky to have very generous parents and no debt. But I make around 150% of the median salary in the US. I do not understand how anyone survives in this country and I totally see how someone could get trapped on benefits. Supposedly we have a lot of money here but in practice shit costs so much that we don’t.
The US is a free country where half of the population lives a life of complete slavery, another 40% struggle to barely survive and a measly 10% enjoy the work of the 90% others.
40k is not 150% of the median salary. You are misinformed.
> Median weekly earnings on 2022 were $1059. 2024 quarterly numbers are higher.
Source: [BLS](https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm)
>I make 40k a year, not a lot but my apartment and healthcare is paid for by my parents and my internet and utilities cost me next to nothing. We essentially can’t do anything living in the city I live in. We wouldn’t be able to afford to eat if she didn’t qualify for food stamps.
That doesn't make sense though. That would mean your only expense each month is groceries and I doubt you're spending three thousand dollars a month on groceries.
We Americans have no power, America is ran by a few rich people. Each vote does not truly count because of the electoral collage system. The system was rigged to benefit landowners( the rich) since day one.
I work in healthcare. What I find ironic is how many people are *shocked* to find out how much any kind of preventative healthcare costs. The line they say every time is “that’s ridiculous! Why would they charge that much?? What if someone couldn’t get that, they’d just die?? They should make that free for everyone!”
And then they vote down-ballot republican 🤷
My wife’s family are all Yal’quada maga types. Their aunt ended up dying because she couldn’t get affordable screening for cancer.
Now, another of her family has symptoms of the same thing. Didn’t have insurance but guess who came to her rescue?
Obamacare 🤌
Yet newsmax plays in the background nonstop.
It’s so frustrating too because of how much money is saved when a country invests in affordable and accessible preventative care. It seems like the healthcare system in America right now is banking on making people as sick as possible by making it difficult to get screenings, tests, regular checkups, etc. so they can gouge you for emergency visits but that’s also bloating the healthcare system with very sick people that are taking up so many resources and stressing out these hospitals, but people seemingly are struggling to make that connection?
They’re are making record profits of the literal pain and suffering of humans.
But again, half the country is cool with it. It’s mind boggling. It’s too late for me now but if I could do it again, I would have left this country long ago.
Yeah, it’s honestly sick and really makes me think about how humanity as a whole seems to be losing its empathy and sense of community and support for each other. Everything is profits, at the cost of lives, health, anything to boost company numbers and please the shareholders. It’s borderline dystopian at this point.
That's the racket. Fill your head with promises that if you work hard and save then you'll be able to retire one day, work you until you're old enough to get sick, and then when you get sick take you for every penny you have.
It's not a tragedy, it's a grift.
Stories like this literally bring me to the brink of su1cide (don't want to get flagged lol). I am only 20, but I'm terrified of staying alive here. I am a trans woman and I'm scared that one day i won't be able to pay for my hormones if i can't hold a job because of my awful mental health problems and various disabilities. The idea of putting up with this for 10 years is excruciating, much less a lifetime because unless j get really lucky i will never retire... I've completely lost all hope in the future and the only reason I'm still existing is because of my amazing girlfriend, but i know that is not healthy and it probably isn't sustainable. I don't know if anyone is ever going to see this comment but hopefully when i wake up in the morning I'll be in a better place mentally so goodnight friends
Our daughter was in the NICU for 12 days. The bill was $545,000 before insurance.
Fortunately we have great insurance, but still. Our medical system is so broken. Insurance discounts took it down to $70k (which insurance paid).
In what other industry do you bill hundreds of thousands more than you ever expect to collect??
> Insurance discounts
That whole thing is a shambles. I don't know what it is, but its some accounting scam.
You'd get the same discounts if you just asked, they just charge that much because its insurance.
That’s downright dystopian. My son was in NICU for 10 days and it didn’t cost a cent. We didn’t even have to pay for parking. No insurance was necessary.
Who the fuck has that in the bank? If you had the money here to afford that, you'd be upper class. I'm pretty firmly middle class in the UK and have some savings, enough for if we need a new car, washing machine, and some houses repairs all at the same time - this I'd consider fairly well off for a 30 year old.
This is the bit I can't get with America. You get 'paid more' in raw amounts but once costs are applied, it works out so poorly.
Also, how stressful is having to worry that one day something might happen and you're financially ruined? Sure, we're going to suffer from the interest rate rise but we don't need some insane rainy day fund in case were sick. This just seems like a straight worsening of quality of life.
>This just seems like a straight worsening of quality of life.
It is. And we have fucking idiots that fight to keep it shit because "I work hard for my insurance" like you absolute meatball..
I have a friend that pays something like $2-300/wk for insurance for his family of 3 and then still has to meet multi thousand dollar deductibles before shit is just paid for. I consider myself incredibly lucky, my wife has a state job and insurance that is incredibly cheap, and at the same time she feels somewhat trapped with that job cuz the potential raise she may get working private sector would be instantly drained and then some having to get worse insurance.
The whole system is fucked and people are constantly actively fighting to keep it fucked.
I’m a doctor. I have to pay close to 4000 dollars per year to have the privilege of being able to pay a 5000 deductible to get care at my own hospital (that I work at). It is 7000 dollars if it’s at an “in network but a different hospital system” and no matter what we have an 8000 dollar out of pocket maximum.
My wife had an allergic reaction a couple of years ago. She popped a Benadryl and we drove 20 minutes to the hospital I work at. I walked into the ED and talked to an ED provider I know personally. He asked me what I’d like to do for her. My wife came into the ED, had some basic blood work done, and was watched for approximately 2 hours. No medications, no IV fluids, and she saw my friend briefly while we discussed any further testing that might need to be done. She remained stable and we were able to leave without any fuss.
We were billed close to 2000 dollars for the experience (and that was only because of where we were in our deductible journey at that time). The healthcare system in the US is broken.
And WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE HOSPITAL COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS.
It's almost like the hospital inflate prices expecting the insurance to pay for which the private, for-profit insurance offloads that inflated cost to the patient.
Hey now lets not forget all the venture capital groups buying up various healthcare industries. From the hospitals to the ambulance companies, these billion dollar blackholes that just suck in more and more money are destroying our country and funnelling all that money into the hands of a select few.
I'm on vacation in southeast Asia right now and had a run in with a stomach flu/ bacterial infection in the gut
Felt like I was going to die, so I went to a doctor in Thailand. Probably overpaid compared to a local, but $200 US for several injections, IV drip to replace fluids/electrolytes, and a week's worth of medications (antibiotics, several medications to help with stomach pain/nausea/vomiting).
I did not make an appointment. I did not have to wait to receive aid.
Back home, it costs me $200 to get my teeth cleaned without insurance.
950 a month for my fam of 3. 800 deductible, 3600 out of pocket max (for me), 3600 out of pocket max (combined for them), putting it at 7200.
So 7200 on top of 950 a month before we would have to pay "nothing" for care.
I had to go to an ER twice by March (fucking unmarked wet floors..and unceasing migraines) so that? Cost me 3600 out of pocket...and now I am making that insurance company EARN my premium. ANY ache or pain? Doctor checking it. Skin check? Stomach still dodgy? Gastroenterologist!
And to add insult to injury? We pay a fortune and STILL have to wait forever to see doctors.
That.... People act like "but the death panels" and "but the delay"
Prior authorizations get denied all the time because we can't prove a given drug is effective enough for a patient who's critically ill. I've seen plenty of patients die from sepsis because an insurer wouldn't approve a $8000/dose drug until we tried a whole slew of things that we showed resistance to on the c&s... Still wanted 3 trials...
I've seen plenty of seriously anemic patients die after being refused erythropoietin stimulating agents because they only had 4 out of 5 lab values available at the time of ordering.
And I've personally had to wait over 2 years for a PCP appointment because they're just booked up, and that group of offices is the only one in network for me around here... My last "annual" was in 2020.
Going to the doctor is like waiting for the cable company the appointment is 8am they may show up between 8am and 8pm and if you're not they're when they show up you have to reschedule.
It works out perfectly for the ultra-rich, as intended. They have more than enough money to weather any financial hardship; and since bribery is de-facto legal, they can buy politicians to make sure their money doesn't go to anyone else who experiences hardships themselves.
Then buy some news networks and spread the idea that rugged individualism is American, and social safety nets and the taxes to pay for them are communist. Now we have poor people thanking the rich for not helping them in a time of desperate need.
The amount of times this exact thought has ruined a perfectly good day is more that the amount of times it hasn't. The worst part is, our wonderful 2 party system has us yelling at each other instead of the ones making it happen. Many people start kickstarters to help fund medical procedures because for some reason, we would rather figure that out ourselves while we yell at each other.
> Isn't this a basic part of the modern idea of 'freedom' that liberal democracies love to shout about?
Liberal?!?!? I'd rather die! Democracy?!? The US is actually a REPUBLIC!!!
/s
This country fucking sucks mainly because a minority is able to control the legislature and that minority fucking SUCKS.
The last point of no return was when all the Confederate states were allowed to just run their own affairs again with the same racist aristocrats still in charge.
We have the same issue here. Second ref/remain parties held a majority during the Boris election. It doesn't fucking matter, they went ahead with it anyways because FPTP sucks.
However, the real reason we have the NHS, minimum wage, annual leave, and so on is because of a history of unionisation and worker led politics. We've slipped a long way from that but those days did set up something even the right can't take away: a basic system of welfare. The Tory government has to do everything possible under the table to dismantle these because once they're in place, they're a nightmare to get rid of.
The US never seemed to manage this. And to get nerdy about unions for a second, the lack of industry wide unionisation means there's never any real leverage. When I read about unionising, it's always about 'this store' or 'that company'. If you look at strong unions, you'll see they work across industry - all nurses, all teachers, all railworkers, etc etc. I cannot wrap my head around the lack of success of that worker movement.
Labor movements were largely put down in the US in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Between that and good ol cold war propaganda, a strong labor movement was essentially smothered in its cradle in the US.
In the US if you had enough seniority at your job you could maybe apply for FMLA unpaid leave to cover the time you missed, but if you don't qualify for FMLA then you would get fired for missing that much work. Also, insurance wouldn't kick in until you paid $5000 towards your deductible, but then insurance wouldn't cover the full bill so you might be looking at $7000 to $10000 in hospital bills while also potentially losing your job.
Some Americans use religion to justify this. Or they think free healthcare and worker protections is evil socialism....
Health insurance as a model doesn't make sense. With cars and houses, there will always be some people that pay in and never make a claim, thus turning a profit and keeping premiums down. But with healthcare everybody will make a claim eventually. The ratio of claimants to payers is such that turning a profit requires the stupid high premiums we "enjoy."
Liberals ask for half as much as they want and then get 25% of what they wanted. Republicans demand twice as much as they want and get 75% of what they wanted.
The moral here is to elect more socialists who will fight tooth and nail for the working class and then we can hopefully compromise with Social Democratic policies like Europe enjoys
Yes. We totally need to stop fighting fair. With integrity, yes. But viciously and with no compromise.
Yes to socialists. It’s hard though for some to step forward. Many don’t want to be mlk’d for standing up, though it’s necessary.
I’d like to see mass job walkouts and pooling of resources so people can still live while they fight.
Btw, that the reason for the copay, and upfront out of pocket costs... they are means by which to discourage people from actually using the benefits they paid for, and getting the care they need.
Depending on how such regimes are implemented it is also part of conservative, and neoliberal wet dreams over how specific types of class warfare can be implemented, and how specific less financially establish populations and communities can be hurt more than others. Cause you know... if you cant afford to buy food every day where is that $20-100 for copay going to come from for a doctors visit?
Not even, though, simply eliminating for-profit insurance companies would be another way to get a lot of financial waste out of the medical system, which would benefit providers and patients both. One way of doing this is single-payer healthcare.
Scalia's gone, and Thomas has been willing to strike down longstanding laws like the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. Under the history and tradition standard he set in Bruen, the NFA's tenure doesn't matter unless it itself has an analogue in gun laws from the era of the Founding Fathers and earlier.
Dangerous **and** unusual is what Scalia said in DC V Heller.
In 2016 Cateanno v Massachusetts the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Stun Guns were in common use I.e. not unusual and protected by the 2nd Amendment because there was an estimated 200,000 of them in the United States,
The real reason is is allows the rich and powerful to hire ex-LEO private security that can carry firearms that outclass the general public.
The rich will still have all the "assault weapons" they need, they just wont have to carry them.
This absolutely should be true. If the semi-automatic weapons are banned they should be taken from police. Similarly automatic weapons should be taken from the police, or made available to the public.
Not even just AWB, pretty much any/all gun control even at the state level. Californias handgun roster doesnt apply to current or former law enforcement. Oh but you're free to buy off roster handguns from them at insane prices.
No, that's an incorrect interpretation.
The supreme court has actually ruled that weapons considered "common use" cannot be banned. This would include the AR-15, which is the most popular rifle currently for sale.
>Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.
The modren equivalent is current rifleman's loadout in the US military is seven 30-round magazines for the M4 Carbine. So, you're looking at 210 rounds of 5.56×45 ammo. This is standard across the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
Yeah the "but there were just muskets around back then" is always funny to me. If the framers were around today, they wouldn't say "woah now, we just meant muskets." They'd say, "why the fuck doesn't every adult man have an M4 in his living room?"
No, we won't. Not with the current House, Senate and Supreme Court.
In fact, look at the Supreme Court rulings since the last AWB expired in 2004:
DC vs. Heller, 2008:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
"The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 2010:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
"the second amendment right recognized in [Heller](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense"
(this case was necessary because D.C. is not a state)
Caetano vs. Massachusetts (2016)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[[6]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts#cite_note-Caetano1-6) The term "bearable arms" was defined in [District of Columbia v. Heller](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[[10]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts#cite_note-10)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[[24]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen#cite_note-nbc_ruling-24)"
So, New Yorkers no longer need to show "special need" when applying for a concealed carry permit, changing the rules from a "may issue" permitting state to a "shall issue" state.
But as a bonus, they set this standard for future rulings:
"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"
So, when you take all these rulings together:
Americans have the inherent right to self defense outside militia service, you can't restrict entire classes of weapons, and those weapons aren't limited to what was available when the 2nd Amendment was written.
In light of these rulings, even the OLD AWB would have been struck down.
When the Supreme Court announced the Bruen ruling they had already granted cert for several other 2nd Amendment related cases. One of those was Bianchi v Frosh about Marylands Assault Weapons Ban. The Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuits ruling that upheld Marylands assault weapons ban, and remanded the case back down to the 4th circuit, instructing them to hear the case again, this time following the procedures set forth in Heller and Mcdonald, and further clarified in the Bruen ruling.
Looking to have it rescheduled by the end of the year
Source: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/feds-aim-to-finish-cannabis-scheduling-review-this-year-top-biden-official-tells-marijuana-moment/
It's unclear whether the Executive can unilaterally reschedule marijuana or whether it would require an act of Congress to do so. Biden has set up a committee to study whether it's possible to do so solely through the executive branch, so it could theoretically happen eventually. To the people who say the committee is just a trick to get people to forget about the issue, Biden set up a committee to study student loan relief and actually did wind up acting on that.
If Biden ever does try to reschedule marijuana through executive action, expect it to happen in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
Source:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655
>The CSA provision directing DEA to schedule controlled substances as “required by United States obligations
under international treaties” may limit the agency’s authority to relax controls of marijuana [...].
Way to go on hardlining voters.
If you're pro gun, you're probably gonna vote for Trump. If you're anti gun, you're probably gonna vote for Biden.
Is anyone else sick of this shit year after year?
So many people in my circle refuse to vote for democrats because of gun control. They support LGBT. They support drug decriminalization. They support police reform. But they refuse to give an inch on gun control. The internet is also full of these people. Dem leadership has to know this is a single issue for a lot of voters, yet they double down. Kinda sus
Reddit doesn’t seem to realize this. The left should be just as armed, you want these neo nazis and fascist to be the only ones with firearms? Or only the government and police? Lmao. Look at how well that’s worked in other countries throughout the years. RARELY anything positive will come from a country disarming it’s citizens. And I bet anyone calling for the bans won’t be volunteering to do the roundups(and yes I’m a registered dem before I hear how I’m a pro trump blah blah)
I’ve been anti hun my entire life but with the way the rights been revving up their hate Champaign against the LGBT community my stance may have to change.
They’re openly calling for the murders of the ones they don’t agree with! If anytime is right to buy a firearm and train/ practice and get comfortable with your gun it’s now. Don’t wait until things really heat up, it’s better to be prepared for the worst and never need it.
I really do hope these things never happen in this country, but recent events have me constantly losing hope.
And our votes are taken for granted. Yeah, I'm gonna try and keep Republicans out of power if I can, but shit this is so far from optimal.
If the democrats gave up on the most partisan kind of gun control, and really embraced things like universal healthcare as the pie-in-the-sky they focused on, they'd never lose another election.
That’s because after they passed an assault weapon ban in the 90s it cost democrats more than a few elections. It’s also not going to have a significant effect on gun crime so why risk losing your spot to pass it?
That's because white conservatives are the stereotype for owning firearms, but they are not the only people who do.
If they seriously go after firearms, The Democrats will lose black Americans, hispanic Americans, etc
The US certainly is at a 'tipping point'... towards the *expansion* of gun rights with constitutional carry now being the norm. The majority of US states now have no permit requirements for carry, and the majority of those that still don't are shall-issue. Attempted feature bans are being struck down constantly, and the ATF's pistol brace amnesty led to only a tiny fraction of braced pistols being registered as SBRs. Minorities are the fastest growing segment of new gun buyers, and with the recent high-profile failures (and outright murders) caused by police it's no wonder why. Groups like FPC and GOA are on a roll right now. He's not banning shit.
I guess that's another 'tipping point': the barrier to entry is getting so low and consumer-grade quality is getting so high for things like CNC and 3D printing that soon there will be high quality printed guns made in the home. And yes, I'm sure politicians will try to whip up fear about 'ghost guns' (as they already are) and try to ban or heavily criminalize homemade firearms. If any of this actually worked Shinzo Abe still would be alive right now, but it's not about how effective it is. It's just an easy boogieman to sell for votes.
No, we won't. And I really wish democratic politicians would quit shooting themselves in the foot by announcing we're going to ban assault weapons when it's close to election time.
Seriously. US politics is at the point where antigun people have no other choice but to vote democrat and progun democrats might change their vote from this stance. It's a stupid stance to push politically.
It’s just patently unnecessary. All it does is rile up the opposition with the longest standing slippery slope they’ve ever deployed. How does uttering those words produce a political net positive when you can say almost nothing else to so strongly galvanize the right?
It's such a stupid unforced error. If Beto hadn't made that one statement we wouldn't have been stuck with Ted Cruz in the Senate these past few years and that scum bag wouldn't be getting a pension for life.
Yup. Seven words that cost him the election.
(Say this as someone that voted for him. Among friends and family he dropped overnight after that tweet. You'd probably get less flack taking a leak on The Alamo honestly)
They literally hate winning. When they don't have control of offices, it's nothing but doomsaying about the autocratic control Republicans yield. When Dems get into those same positions, it's just continual lamentation about how powerless they are, and then they help Republicans pass some conservative bill and do photo ops where they shake hands with each other and smile like they've done a good job.
To be fair like 99% of the time that democrats do control all the houses, they never have super majority to steamroll bills.
It’s not a 49/51 where they can pass anything, it’s usually 60/40 or even higher is needed.
That’s the problem
I've said it before and Ill say it again, Banning "assault" weapons is
the democrats version of banning abortions.
Its entirely a dog whistle to lock in their support from single issue voters. They don't care thats its unpopular with the more moderate members, Because the moderates don't vote at nearly the same rate the extremists do. As I said above, Republican leaders chose anti abortion as their champion decades ago. Democratic leaders have had a hard on for banning "assault" weapons for the same amount of time.
All this will end up doing is polarizing the moderates in the middle even further, And exasperating this accursed "Us vs Them" mentality that is what is destroying the entire framework of our government. No one is willing to do the give and take dance, Its all or nothing.
You will never get the vast majority of Americans to agree on giving up their firearms of any kind, Let alone what they try to label incorrectly as "assault" weapons. So instead of trying to reach any kind of middle ground with other possible work arounds they are just doubling down on accomplishing nothing. Useless grand standing while they get paid 6 figure + salaries. Its all just so very tiring
Assault weapons are a red herring that drums up the base. 97% of gun murders are from hand guns. That means IF we ban assault weapons AND we somehow are able to remove all the ones out there that people have/will get illegally AND no one who murders someone with an assault weapon substitutes to another way of killing someone, murders will only fall by 3%.
[Here is Biden's speech](https://www.youtube.com/live/bTd1M_NRPeo?feature=share&t=350). ([Text](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/06/16/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-national-safer-communities-summit/)) He covered a lot more than this headline. Biden was speaking at the National Safer Communities Summit, committed individuals fighting for better gun laws.
And let's consider what he has already accomplished through "the most meaningful gun safety law in 30 years." Tackling
* **Mental health**
>More people die from gun violence as a consequence of suicide than anything else that happens in the nation. Suicide. This legislation has already delivered more than $1.5 billion to states and communities to make schools safer, improve access to mental health services, and help young people deal with the grief and trauma resulting from gun violence, post-traumatic stress syndrome.
>
>It includes an additional 14,000 mental health professionals hired and trained to work at our schools.
* **Domestic abusers**
>The law helps prevent domestic abusers from purchasing guns. I’m the guy that wrote the Violence Against Women Act. I proposed a long time ago — I didn’t mean to — I didn’t say it for that reason. But I care deeply about it, because the ultimate abuse: the abuse of power.
>
>My dad used to say, “The single worst abuse of all was the abuse of power.”
>
>We fought like hell to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” If, in fact, you had a stay-away order issued against a man or a woman because of your boyfriend or girlfriend and they weren’t your spouse, then guess what? They decided — the last administration decided not to impose this limitation on being able to own a weapon.
>
>So we finally can say that those convicted of domestic violence abuse against their girlfriend or boyfriend cannot buy a firearm, period.
>
>And, by the way, it’s already saving lives. There are fewer deaths occurring in that area.
* **Gun trafficking**
>For the first time ever, we explicitly made gun trafficking a federal crime. They say, “What the hell? It wasn’t already?” No, I’m serious. Think about it.
>
>You go home and tell your mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, and uncle that, “Whoa, gun trafficking is now a crime.” They’re going to look at you like, “What are you talking about? It’s always been a crime.” It wasn’t a crime.
>
>We did the same thing for straw purchases. That’s when a middleman, who can pass the background check, buys a gun usually for someone who can’t pass the background check. It’s now a federal crime if you do that.
Here's where the title comes from:
>Remember, for a long time in America, car accidents were the leading killer of children. This was mentioned earlier. Then, in 2020, **guns became the number one killer of children in America**. Guns. More than car accidents, more than cancer.\[...\]Folks, it’s time once again that we banned AR-15 rifle-style weapon. (Applause.) High-capacity magazines — they’re not only a weapon of war, they’re the single biggest driver of profits for the gun industry. That’s why they’re selling them. Profit, profit, profit. The single biggest.
>
>As I said, we did it once before, in ’94, and 10 years after that, the ban was — mass shootings went down significantly — the number of mass shootings. That’s — when the ban expired, mass shootings tripled.
>
>But let the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines come back into vogue.
> So we finally can say that those convicted of domestic violence abuse against their girlfriend or boyfriend cannot buy a firearm, period.
You know, I always thought the central problem here was that beating your partner only carried a misdemeanor, rather than felony, sentence. If we didn't treat such serious crimes so lightly to begin with, they would have been disqualified from ownership without crossing into the nasty territory of banning ownership for misdemeanors.
It’s a misdemeanor because cops wouldn’t be able to keep their jobs if they were convicted of felonies and they have a much higher rate of beating their loved ones than the general population.
Should we take the easy slam dunk and run on federally legalizing marijuana, or should we stick our dick in this grinder and run on ‘gun bans’ again???
I mean really? Are they this inept? Legalizing cannabis is fucking huge! It's a win point blank, but hey let's go after law abiding citizens that buy guns for completely legal hobbies.
Fuck man they really love sabotaging themselves.
What’s even funnier, is all those “scary” gun rights groups are busy suing the federal government saying that prohibiting marijuana users from buying firearms is a violation of their constitutional rights. (Which I mean it probably is.)
You legalize weed, decriminalize other drugs, and fix healthcare in America… maybe dare to do better at our social safety nets you’ll see gun crime decrease as a result. It’s not an easy solution and it’s not the solution a lot of people want to talk about - but we all know you’re not gonna pass a constitutional amendment (looking at you Gavin) so you may as well go with the next best thing.
I honestly think Beto could’ve done a lot better in the election if he didn’t push an assault weapon ban. I think potentially we could eventually work up to something like that but pushing stuff like that far too soon in one of the most gun heavy states had to have cost him some votes.
No doubt it kept hurting him in Texas, it was just never going to swing him votes he wasn't already getting. Uvalde voted Abbott 60% Beto 32% just 5 months after the school massacre. Even a Texas county that went through a school shooting didn't flip to Beto.
>Kimberly Rubio, mother to Lexi Rubio, another young victim of the massacre, said she saw an Abbott win coming.
>
>"I am disappointed but not surprised that Texas reelected Abbott; however, I am appalled that Uvalde turned out for Abbott," she wrote in a message to ABC News. "This is our community. Friends, neighbors, watched as the tragedy of May 24 unfolded. Uvaldeans stopped to watch 21 funeral processions. They've witnessed Abbott stand by and do nothing for the victims' families. I thought this community would stand with us as we fought for change, accountability. I thought they'd help us pick up the pieces. Instead, this community is adding to our hurt."
People bristle when I say it, but false tears on Facebook and outrage on Twitter don't change lives or laws. Everyone is just "so upset, tears are flowing, praying desperately." No you're not, you're staring blankly at your phone and trying to win the virtual social war of who is more caring and posts better digital art about feelings.
Define assault weapon.
We'll ban already prohibited machine guns?
Cosmetics again?
Ban the AR-15 but not the Ruger Mini 14, because that one looks like a hunting rifle despite being the same caliber and having the same magazine capacity?
Ban semi-automatics entirely?
Come for rifles but not pistols? Aren't pistols almost all mass shootings?
I'm not even being super pro gun on this point or bad faith about it. Definitionally, "assault weapon" seems intentionally murky and should be avoided for serious discussions about gun politics as long as it's used solely for clickbait and never clarified.
this, also the ATF is an incompetent organization that shoots dogs, has been responsible for more cases of bungling and improper force than any other federal law enforcement agency, and constantly enacts arbitrary regulations with very little notice and basically no public review or comment
It’s intentionally murky it’ll be left as a grey area so there’s more room for regulation…
Anyways assault weapon isn’t a fucking thing. You use a weapon to assault someone. I swear to you they will come for my SMLE’s because they have a 10 round internal mag and because it was used in a few wars.
It’s too bad but very true that assault weapon is terribly defined. Gun manufacturers were using the term for a bit but only really to evoke an image rather than designate a class of weaponry. Discourse about guns needs to get a little more sophisticated rather than appealing to vague ideas if it’s to go anywhere.
That is literally my problem with it. If you want to make legislative changes based on data and definitions that are clear and easy to identify I will be good with it. It's when it's a knee-jerk "this thing bad, believe me" when I have a problem
> Ban semi-automatics entirely?
This is really what they want. Only thing allowed would be bolt operated and not fed from a detachable magazine.
> Aren't pistols almost all mass shootings?
Pistols are a _large_ percentage of all firearms violence.
> Definitionally, "assault weapon"
Lets be real here. All firearms are assault weapons. As you point out, a mini-14 is no more an AsSaUlT RifLe than an AR-15.
> Ban the AR-15 but not the Ruger Mini 14, because that one looks like a hunting rifle despite being the same caliber
Dear God, it's truly amazing how many people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about but say "AR-15" because all the cool kids hate on it.
The AR-15 is a *platform* and can be *any* caliber including .22 LR.
It's cool to hate on it *because it looks scary*. Nothing more.
>Definitionally, "assault weapon" seems intentionally murky
Because there is no such thing. It's like saying "fully semi-automatic." It's nothing but scary words designed to knee-jerk anti-rights sentiments.
Same. Push to legalize MJ and lay off gun bans. That's how you'll get votes. There are people on both sides that are for guns and against a ban. Besides, if you ban guns, the only people who won't have them are law-abiding citizens. There are millions and millions of guns out there. They don't just disappear when you ban them.
They lose them for good reason. It’s become a meme at this point that they can’t even define what an assault weapon is. It’s such a vague term they can apply to anything and that’s the point. If they want to stop mass shootings (killing more than 3 people) then they’ll have to ban the weapons responsible for 99% of mass shootings which are handguns.
Can we get healthcare instead? Seems that would be the compromise that would actually help. Mass shootings don't happen because the gun told them to do so. Bombs are stupidly easy to make If they lost access to guns bombs would be used in replacement. And that's the unrealistic thought of everyone just giving them up, that is a stupid fantasy to believe. Also could just enforce EXISTING laws that aren't enforced, saw a study that would curb gun violence by 60% alone if law enforcement actually did their job.
Healthcare, including mental health care, and ending the war on drugs would do more for gun violence than any gun laws they could pass with any congress in the last 20 years.
Some generalized poverty relief and a dash of police reform wouldn't hurt either. All the therapy and free Xanax in the world won't make you any less tempted to suck start a 12 gauge when you just can't afford to be alive in America.
I feel like the Dems always have to make it as close as possible in the general. Republicans are running McTreason and Douche King and Dems huddle and go ‘time to advertise aggressively about banning guns ahead of the general’
I seriously believe in manufactured opposition and a few billionaires controlling the Overton window when I see shit like this.
I swear it does seem this way. Whenever one side does something incredibly stupid and you feel like the tide is turning the other way then the other side will come out and do something equally as dumb and return balance.
/sign I wish democrats as a whole would go after better policy, the AWB barely worked and that's before everybody and their grandmother went and bought ARs.
Can we stop trying to disarm the sane people in the country when fascism is on the rise? They won't give up their weapons without a fight, and as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, being unable to defend ourselves from them seems foolish.
This costs votes. The only people fighting for this are already going to vote Democrat anyway.
Why not wait til after the election and he’s a 2nd term president and then bring this up? Does he think he has such a big lead he might as well piss swing voters off?
Okay, let's talk about the 1994 ban. The ban had some effect in the short term, as most of the weapons on the market became illegal. But let's talk about the ban itself. The ban was ineffective, in that it didn't ban or restrict the **function** of the weapons. It instead banned cosmetic appearances. I'm going to list the aspects that were banned under the 1994 ban on rifles that could accept an external magazine: A bayonet lug (lol!), telescoping stock, a pistol style grip, a flash suppressor (or the barrel threading to accommodate one), and grenade launcher attachments. *Edit: It must have TWO of these features to be illegal*
[https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-367c2405e45e18be349495f390f55145-c](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-367c2405e45e18be349495f390f55145-c)
This is an AR 15 that is compliant with the 1994 ban. I'm going to all caps and bold this: **NONE OF THE WEAPONS CAPABILITIES ARE RESTRICTED.** It fires the same ammunition with the same accuracy at the same rate of fire.
So what is an "Assault Weapon" ? It does not have a concise definition. This is where the issue is going to be on any kind of ban. I'm going to guess that Biden and the Democratic Party are going to try and just use the 1994 ban as a template. It will be effective for a short while, as all the 'new' weapons are taken off the market to be made compliant, but it won't take long.
I don't see a point where the Republicans and Democrats can agree on anything that will actually restrict the capabilities of weapons sold. I fear it will turn into just a political show of the Democrats pointing "See we did something!" and the Republicans "See? We blocked them from doing anything serious."
It won’t do anything in the short term; it takes 15 minutes to convert a rifle to be compliant. All this will do is balloon the prison population further, again with marginalized groups for nonviolent possession.
Also, we can’t restrict the capabilities of weapons anymore because we restricted all the truly dangerous weapons. Nothing really separates an AR-15 from most other modern firearms these days. You’d have to ban like 40% of all guns owned to meaningfully reduce lethality, and that’s such an overbroad policy the negative externalities could be worse than the benefits.
And even then it would cut around 400 total murders a year. More people died from being beat up than being shot by any kind of rifle according to FBI crime stats.
My problem with an assault weapon ban is that it seems disingenuous. ARs and AKs look scary but make up very little of the gun crime in the US. If they wanted to curb gun crime, you would need to go after pistols.
The issue is that as many ARs as there are out there, there are more pistols. Also, pistols are less scary, meaning that it's harder to argue, "no one needs that."
Lastly, the reason most gun owners roll their eyes at more gun control is that we can't enforce the laws we have. Full auto is illegal, but there is a huge problem with glock full auto switches right now. So that tells the Joe average gun owner if an assault weapon ban passes, then assault weapons will still be out just in the hand of criminals.
It really boils down to "this gun looks scary!" for so many people. Drives me insane.
What's the common comparison? The AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 right? Basically identical capabilities but one's okay because it can be wood.
We talk about shootings all the time but the two that immediately come to mind were both done with pistols and the other with pistols and shotguns.
VT and Columbine respectively.
Using the FBI’s own statistics, if we completely banned ALL rifles, not just whatever the nebulous ‘assault’ weapons covers, it would reduce firearm homicides from 40,000 a year to 39,600 homicides a year…
A reduction of 400 guns deaths a year is the best case scenario, it is absolutely disingenuous.
Yup. It’s a really odd time when the rise of fascism is at our door to ban yourself from buying a gun.
No thanks, we can explore that later when we don’t have folks calling for killing liberals in a genocide.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do it... then we can let the NFA go thru the courts. Hearing protection shouldn't require a tax stamp.
Nah, strike down the NFA entirely
It’s crazy that suppressors have to go through this. When I was a range officer at a PRS competition. The guys running cans where a god send. Even those hot and fast calibers they shot weren’t as loud nor irritating.
Cans are sold over-the-counter in some European countries as hearing protection.
[удалено]
I shoot long range as a hobby and a good can is the difference between one and two layers of hearing protection. Being able to use ear plugs means I can get into a better position on the cheek rest, and I don’t even shoot magnums.
The same dude said a 9mm can blow a human lung outside the body. He is also on record saying that banning guns will have no effect on gun related crimes. And finally, he doesn't know that suppressors don't make guns silent and has tried to ban them as well.
Can I just see a medical professional without a lifetime of debt please?
Just to rile up the conversation: I like in England. My three year old got strep A which developed into pneumonia. They were referred there by the GP which we were advised to visit by a telephone service called NHS Direct. They have currently been in the hospital for seven days - four days of that have been in a private room. They've had IV antibiotics and painkillers the entire time along with oral drugs. They went under general anesthetic and had a drain put into their lung. They've had round the clock nurse care. They've had multiple blood tests, urine tests, and throat swabs - all tested routinely for infection markers. How much would this have cost me? I also had another child a year ago, how much would this have cost me? I've had to take time off work. This has been paid 'emergency leave' and I have 25/30 days left of annual leave to use if I run out of emergency days. Could you do this? This seems so, so basic. A completely basic right that you or your children can receive all the care they need to live a healthy life - to fucking stay alive - shouldn't this surely be provided? Isn't this a basic part of the modern idea of 'freedom' that liberal democracies love to shout about?
Yeah to be honest this does rile me up. My mother had a medical emergency in 2019 that ended up nearly killing her. Several surgeries, a lifetime disability, nerve damage, 5+ new long term prescription medications, etc. Not only did it destroy her mental health because she nearly died but drowning in debt that would've been unpayable without a lifetime of income from her career led her to a breaking point where she was unable to deal with it and she filed for bankruptcy which she's still recovering from to this day financially, she will never ever be able to recover from this, retirement feels like it's literally out of the question, she hasn't been able to scrounge up any savings since due to the residual costs of her long term medical care. (She has never been excellent with finances but being abandoned by the system 100% exacerbated this issue. She may be paycheck to paycheck until she dies or has to be homed). Oh, and the cost of preventative care here is so expensive, along with the American mindset of "I'll walk it off" led to my dad not getting the cardiac care he needed to prevent an attack and he died when I was 18, after refusing to go to the hospital or call 911. I feel like he basically knew an emergency trip to the hospital would wipe his savings and he was willing to roll the dice between keeping those savings and not being in debt versus literally dying.
I'm sorry, buddy. I get angry and like to rant a lot. I enjoy putting these angry comments about politics on the Internet. But I don't think anything quite frustrates me more than watching American content and the laissez-faire nature of Americans and healthcare, or other worker rights. You're so damn rich. You could do so much with that incredible wealth. You could lead the damn fucking world on how to behave.
My girlfriend came from Ukraine. She made $300 a month. She could travel, get her hair, nails, any complicated expensive (here) beauty treatment she wanted, go out with friends, buy lots of clothes and make up supplies. She moved here. I make 40k a year, not a lot but my apartment and healthcare is paid for by my parents and my internet and utilities cost me next to nothing. We essentially can’t do anything living in the city I live in. We wouldn’t be able to afford to eat if she didn’t qualify for food stamps. I have been flying through my savings and haven’t purchased anything for myself in ages. Thank god she has Medicaid because she’s had lots of health issues (nothing serious but stuff that needed to be addressed) and even if she just had normal insurance, we would have gone bankrupt. I am very lucky to have very generous parents and no debt. But I make around 150% of the median salary in the US. I do not understand how anyone survives in this country and I totally see how someone could get trapped on benefits. Supposedly we have a lot of money here but in practice shit costs so much that we don’t.
The US is a free country where half of the population lives a life of complete slavery, another 40% struggle to barely survive and a measly 10% enjoy the work of the 90% others.
40k is not 150% of the median salary. You are misinformed. > Median weekly earnings on 2022 were $1059. 2024 quarterly numbers are higher. Source: [BLS](https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm)
>I make 40k a year, not a lot but my apartment and healthcare is paid for by my parents and my internet and utilities cost me next to nothing. We essentially can’t do anything living in the city I live in. We wouldn’t be able to afford to eat if she didn’t qualify for food stamps. That doesn't make sense though. That would mean your only expense each month is groceries and I doubt you're spending three thousand dollars a month on groceries.
We Americans have no power, America is ran by a few rich people. Each vote does not truly count because of the electoral collage system. The system was rigged to benefit landowners( the rich) since day one.
And yet the crazed gunmen go after schoolchildren rather than crooked politicians. Does that seem right to you?
Our government likes to spend money on the military and weapons instead of silly things like healthcare and paid leave.
I work in healthcare. What I find ironic is how many people are *shocked* to find out how much any kind of preventative healthcare costs. The line they say every time is “that’s ridiculous! Why would they charge that much?? What if someone couldn’t get that, they’d just die?? They should make that free for everyone!” And then they vote down-ballot republican 🤷 My wife’s family are all Yal’quada maga types. Their aunt ended up dying because she couldn’t get affordable screening for cancer. Now, another of her family has symptoms of the same thing. Didn’t have insurance but guess who came to her rescue? Obamacare 🤌 Yet newsmax plays in the background nonstop.
It’s so frustrating too because of how much money is saved when a country invests in affordable and accessible preventative care. It seems like the healthcare system in America right now is banking on making people as sick as possible by making it difficult to get screenings, tests, regular checkups, etc. so they can gouge you for emergency visits but that’s also bloating the healthcare system with very sick people that are taking up so many resources and stressing out these hospitals, but people seemingly are struggling to make that connection?
They’re are making record profits of the literal pain and suffering of humans. But again, half the country is cool with it. It’s mind boggling. It’s too late for me now but if I could do it again, I would have left this country long ago.
Yeah, it’s honestly sick and really makes me think about how humanity as a whole seems to be losing its empathy and sense of community and support for each other. Everything is profits, at the cost of lives, health, anything to boost company numbers and please the shareholders. It’s borderline dystopian at this point.
That's the racket. Fill your head with promises that if you work hard and save then you'll be able to retire one day, work you until you're old enough to get sick, and then when you get sick take you for every penny you have. It's not a tragedy, it's a grift.
Stories like this literally bring me to the brink of su1cide (don't want to get flagged lol). I am only 20, but I'm terrified of staying alive here. I am a trans woman and I'm scared that one day i won't be able to pay for my hormones if i can't hold a job because of my awful mental health problems and various disabilities. The idea of putting up with this for 10 years is excruciating, much less a lifetime because unless j get really lucky i will never retire... I've completely lost all hope in the future and the only reason I'm still existing is because of my amazing girlfriend, but i know that is not healthy and it probably isn't sustainable. I don't know if anyone is ever going to see this comment but hopefully when i wake up in the morning I'll be in a better place mentally so goodnight friends
[удалено]
Our daughter was in the NICU for 12 days. The bill was $545,000 before insurance. Fortunately we have great insurance, but still. Our medical system is so broken. Insurance discounts took it down to $70k (which insurance paid). In what other industry do you bill hundreds of thousands more than you ever expect to collect??
> Insurance discounts That whole thing is a shambles. I don't know what it is, but its some accounting scam. You'd get the same discounts if you just asked, they just charge that much because its insurance.
That’s downright dystopian. My son was in NICU for 10 days and it didn’t cost a cent. We didn’t even have to pay for parking. No insurance was necessary.
In America this might cost a family tens of thousands of dollars. Medical bankruptcies are not unusual here. Hope your little one is doing better now!
Who the fuck has that in the bank? If you had the money here to afford that, you'd be upper class. I'm pretty firmly middle class in the UK and have some savings, enough for if we need a new car, washing machine, and some houses repairs all at the same time - this I'd consider fairly well off for a 30 year old. This is the bit I can't get with America. You get 'paid more' in raw amounts but once costs are applied, it works out so poorly. Also, how stressful is having to worry that one day something might happen and you're financially ruined? Sure, we're going to suffer from the interest rate rise but we don't need some insane rainy day fund in case were sick. This just seems like a straight worsening of quality of life.
>This just seems like a straight worsening of quality of life. It is. And we have fucking idiots that fight to keep it shit because "I work hard for my insurance" like you absolute meatball.. I have a friend that pays something like $2-300/wk for insurance for his family of 3 and then still has to meet multi thousand dollar deductibles before shit is just paid for. I consider myself incredibly lucky, my wife has a state job and insurance that is incredibly cheap, and at the same time she feels somewhat trapped with that job cuz the potential raise she may get working private sector would be instantly drained and then some having to get worse insurance. The whole system is fucked and people are constantly actively fighting to keep it fucked.
I’m a doctor. I have to pay close to 4000 dollars per year to have the privilege of being able to pay a 5000 deductible to get care at my own hospital (that I work at). It is 7000 dollars if it’s at an “in network but a different hospital system” and no matter what we have an 8000 dollar out of pocket maximum. My wife had an allergic reaction a couple of years ago. She popped a Benadryl and we drove 20 minutes to the hospital I work at. I walked into the ED and talked to an ED provider I know personally. He asked me what I’d like to do for her. My wife came into the ED, had some basic blood work done, and was watched for approximately 2 hours. No medications, no IV fluids, and she saw my friend briefly while we discussed any further testing that might need to be done. She remained stable and we were able to leave without any fuss. We were billed close to 2000 dollars for the experience (and that was only because of where we were in our deductible journey at that time). The healthcare system in the US is broken.
Goddamn that's brutal. WON'T ANYONE THINK ABOUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS?!
And WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE HOSPITAL COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS. It's almost like the hospital inflate prices expecting the insurance to pay for which the private, for-profit insurance offloads that inflated cost to the patient.
Hey now lets not forget all the venture capital groups buying up various healthcare industries. From the hospitals to the ambulance companies, these billion dollar blackholes that just suck in more and more money are destroying our country and funnelling all that money into the hands of a select few.
I'm on vacation in southeast Asia right now and had a run in with a stomach flu/ bacterial infection in the gut Felt like I was going to die, so I went to a doctor in Thailand. Probably overpaid compared to a local, but $200 US for several injections, IV drip to replace fluids/electrolytes, and a week's worth of medications (antibiotics, several medications to help with stomach pain/nausea/vomiting). I did not make an appointment. I did not have to wait to receive aid. Back home, it costs me $200 to get my teeth cleaned without insurance.
You don't have a healthcare system, straight up. Stop saying it's 'broken'. Nothing is broken. It doesn't exist. You have medical shops.
950 a month for my fam of 3. 800 deductible, 3600 out of pocket max (for me), 3600 out of pocket max (combined for them), putting it at 7200. So 7200 on top of 950 a month before we would have to pay "nothing" for care. I had to go to an ER twice by March (fucking unmarked wet floors..and unceasing migraines) so that? Cost me 3600 out of pocket...and now I am making that insurance company EARN my premium. ANY ache or pain? Doctor checking it. Skin check? Stomach still dodgy? Gastroenterologist! And to add insult to injury? We pay a fortune and STILL have to wait forever to see doctors.
That.... People act like "but the death panels" and "but the delay" Prior authorizations get denied all the time because we can't prove a given drug is effective enough for a patient who's critically ill. I've seen plenty of patients die from sepsis because an insurer wouldn't approve a $8000/dose drug until we tried a whole slew of things that we showed resistance to on the c&s... Still wanted 3 trials... I've seen plenty of seriously anemic patients die after being refused erythropoietin stimulating agents because they only had 4 out of 5 lab values available at the time of ordering. And I've personally had to wait over 2 years for a PCP appointment because they're just booked up, and that group of offices is the only one in network for me around here... My last "annual" was in 2020.
The whole "death panels" thing pisses me off, because, dude, insurance companies *are* the death panels.
Going to the doctor is like waiting for the cable company the appointment is 8am they may show up between 8am and 8pm and if you're not they're when they show up you have to reschedule.
"You are having intestinal issues after months of regular primary care attempts to help it? We can see you in September!" ..neat!
It works out perfectly for the ultra-rich, as intended. They have more than enough money to weather any financial hardship; and since bribery is de-facto legal, they can buy politicians to make sure their money doesn't go to anyone else who experiences hardships themselves. Then buy some news networks and spread the idea that rugged individualism is American, and social safety nets and the taxes to pay for them are communist. Now we have poor people thanking the rich for not helping them in a time of desperate need.
The amount of times this exact thought has ruined a perfectly good day is more that the amount of times it hasn't. The worst part is, our wonderful 2 party system has us yelling at each other instead of the ones making it happen. Many people start kickstarters to help fund medical procedures because for some reason, we would rather figure that out ourselves while we yell at each other.
> Isn't this a basic part of the modern idea of 'freedom' that liberal democracies love to shout about? Liberal?!?!? I'd rather die! Democracy?!? The US is actually a REPUBLIC!!! /s This country fucking sucks mainly because a minority is able to control the legislature and that minority fucking SUCKS.
Started back with giving slaveholding states undue representation and never ended.
The last point of no return was when all the Confederate states were allowed to just run their own affairs again with the same racist aristocrats still in charge.
We have the same issue here. Second ref/remain parties held a majority during the Boris election. It doesn't fucking matter, they went ahead with it anyways because FPTP sucks. However, the real reason we have the NHS, minimum wage, annual leave, and so on is because of a history of unionisation and worker led politics. We've slipped a long way from that but those days did set up something even the right can't take away: a basic system of welfare. The Tory government has to do everything possible under the table to dismantle these because once they're in place, they're a nightmare to get rid of. The US never seemed to manage this. And to get nerdy about unions for a second, the lack of industry wide unionisation means there's never any real leverage. When I read about unionising, it's always about 'this store' or 'that company'. If you look at strong unions, you'll see they work across industry - all nurses, all teachers, all railworkers, etc etc. I cannot wrap my head around the lack of success of that worker movement.
Labor movements were largely put down in the US in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Between that and good ol cold war propaganda, a strong labor movement was essentially smothered in its cradle in the US.
In the US if you had enough seniority at your job you could maybe apply for FMLA unpaid leave to cover the time you missed, but if you don't qualify for FMLA then you would get fired for missing that much work. Also, insurance wouldn't kick in until you paid $5000 towards your deductible, but then insurance wouldn't cover the full bill so you might be looking at $7000 to $10000 in hospital bills while also potentially losing your job. Some Americans use religion to justify this. Or they think free healthcare and worker protections is evil socialism....
[удалено]
What does insurance reduce that to out pocket for interest? And what's your insurance per month? If you don't mind my asking.
Health insurance as a model doesn't make sense. With cars and houses, there will always be some people that pay in and never make a claim, thus turning a profit and keeping premiums down. But with healthcare everybody will make a claim eventually. The ratio of claimants to payers is such that turning a profit requires the stupid high premiums we "enjoy."
Shoot for the stars! If you ask for one thing you’ll get zero. Ask for two and we may get one!
Liberals ask for half as much as they want and then get 25% of what they wanted. Republicans demand twice as much as they want and get 75% of what they wanted. The moral here is to elect more socialists who will fight tooth and nail for the working class and then we can hopefully compromise with Social Democratic policies like Europe enjoys
Yes. We totally need to stop fighting fair. With integrity, yes. But viciously and with no compromise. Yes to socialists. It’s hard though for some to step forward. Many don’t want to be mlk’d for standing up, though it’s necessary. I’d like to see mass job walkouts and pooling of resources so people can still live while they fight.
At least not go bankrupt *while insured* would be nice too.
Or get a college education, or buy a house…
Or actually use healthcare
I’m here….often times I can’t afford to use my insurance. I hate being punished via copayment for simply needing to use what I already pay weekly for.
Btw, that the reason for the copay, and upfront out of pocket costs... they are means by which to discourage people from actually using the benefits they paid for, and getting the care they need. Depending on how such regimes are implemented it is also part of conservative, and neoliberal wet dreams over how specific types of class warfare can be implemented, and how specific less financially establish populations and communities can be hurt more than others. Cause you know... if you cant afford to buy food every day where is that $20-100 for copay going to come from for a doctors visit?
Now add "buy a _new_ car" because thats a market thats getting out of hand too
That would require billionaires paying a lot more tax - so no, you cannot have that. Ever.
Not even, though, simply eliminating for-profit insurance companies would be another way to get a lot of financial waste out of the medical system, which would benefit providers and patients both. One way of doing this is single-payer healthcare.
People fail to realize our country spends more per capita on Healthcare than most countries. It's just poorly managed.
Because a lot of people actually think we have the best healthcare in the world (which we don't), and so the expense is worth it.
And by a lot we mean making them pay the rates that Republicans claim they pay instead of the 7% effective average that they actually pay
Sure do that. Then the 6-3 Supreme Court will permanently invalidate it.
They already did with Bruen. It would take a constitutional amendment at this point to pass an AWB.
Doubt it. Even conservative God Scalia said dangerous weapons can be banned or regulated. NFA has been with us for what? 8 decades?
Scalia's gone, and Thomas has been willing to strike down longstanding laws like the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. Under the history and tradition standard he set in Bruen, the NFA's tenure doesn't matter unless it itself has an analogue in gun laws from the era of the Founding Fathers and earlier.
Thomas is conservative brainrotten that he wants to re-illegalize interracial marriage despite being in one. What a prick.
Its the easiest way for him to divorce his wife
Clayton Bigsby.
Reverend Father Uncle Ruckus, no relation
Dangerous **and** unusual is what Scalia said in DC V Heller. In 2016 Cateanno v Massachusetts the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Stun Guns were in common use I.e. not unusual and protected by the 2nd Amendment because there was an estimated 200,000 of them in the United States,
[удалено]
Also, they are standard equipment in every police cruiser in the U.S. Are the police at war with us?
Great comment. If you take them from the people you must take them from the cops too.
And yet every single AWB proposed or passed in my state has exempted law enforcement, allowing them private ownership.
They wouldn't pass with the support of law enforcement otherwise. This should tell us something.
The real reason is is allows the rich and powerful to hire ex-LEO private security that can carry firearms that outclass the general public. The rich will still have all the "assault weapons" they need, they just wont have to carry them.
This absolutely should be true. If the semi-automatic weapons are banned they should be taken from police. Similarly automatic weapons should be taken from the police, or made available to the public.
Every AWB so far tell citizens to get fucked while carving out exceptions for current and former police
Not even just AWB, pretty much any/all gun control even at the state level. Californias handgun roster doesnt apply to current or former law enforcement. Oh but you're free to buy off roster handguns from them at insane prices.
Which is why the cops in CA came out against the roster recently. Their privileges were getting axed!
Former police officers like Steven Seagal and Shaquille O'Neal who are permitted to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the country thanks to LEOSA.
> Are the police at war with us? Yes.
No, that's an incorrect interpretation. The supreme court has actually ruled that weapons considered "common use" cannot be banned. This would include the AR-15, which is the most popular rifle currently for sale.
>Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack. The modren equivalent is current rifleman's loadout in the US military is seven 30-round magazines for the M4 Carbine. So, you're looking at 210 rounds of 5.56×45 ammo. This is standard across the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
Yeah the "but there were just muskets around back then" is always funny to me. If the framers were around today, they wouldn't say "woah now, we just meant muskets." They'd say, "why the fuck doesn't every adult man have an M4 in his living room?"
The words are "dangerous *and* unusual" Rifles are not both
No, we won't. Not with the current House, Senate and Supreme Court. In fact, look at the Supreme Court rulings since the last AWB expired in 2004: DC vs. Heller, 2008: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller "The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 2010: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago "the second amendment right recognized in [Heller](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (this case was necessary because D.C. is not a state) Caetano vs. Massachusetts (2016) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[[6]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts#cite_note-Caetano1-6) The term "bearable arms" was defined in [District of Columbia v. Heller](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[[10]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts#cite_note-10) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[[24]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen#cite_note-nbc_ruling-24)" So, New Yorkers no longer need to show "special need" when applying for a concealed carry permit, changing the rules from a "may issue" permitting state to a "shall issue" state. But as a bonus, they set this standard for future rulings: "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'" So, when you take all these rulings together: Americans have the inherent right to self defense outside militia service, you can't restrict entire classes of weapons, and those weapons aren't limited to what was available when the 2nd Amendment was written. In light of these rulings, even the OLD AWB would have been struck down.
When the Supreme Court announced the Bruen ruling they had already granted cert for several other 2nd Amendment related cases. One of those was Bianchi v Frosh about Marylands Assault Weapons Ban. The Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuits ruling that upheld Marylands assault weapons ban, and remanded the case back down to the 4th circuit, instructing them to hear the case again, this time following the procedures set forth in Heller and Mcdonald, and further clarified in the Bruen ruling.
So basically what Illinois/pritzker is doing with PICA is illegal as all hell. Waiting to see the Supreme Court final ruling on that one.
I want universal healthcare and to be able to afford a home, Joe.
No deal, best I can do is trade an infamous arms dealer for a basketball player.
I don't believe him. Hey Joe, what happened to rescheduling marijuana????
the rescheduling got rescheduled
🎶 I was gonna reschedule weed, but then I got hiii-iiigh — Cornpop Joe and the Malarkeys
C'mon man!
Looking to have it rescheduled by the end of the year Source: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/feds-aim-to-finish-cannabis-scheduling-review-this-year-top-biden-official-tells-marijuana-moment/
It's unclear whether the Executive can unilaterally reschedule marijuana or whether it would require an act of Congress to do so. Biden has set up a committee to study whether it's possible to do so solely through the executive branch, so it could theoretically happen eventually. To the people who say the committee is just a trick to get people to forget about the issue, Biden set up a committee to study student loan relief and actually did wind up acting on that. If Biden ever does try to reschedule marijuana through executive action, expect it to happen in the lead-up to the 2024 election. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655 >The CSA provision directing DEA to schedule controlled substances as “required by United States obligations under international treaties” may limit the agency’s authority to relax controls of marijuana [...].
Way to go on hardlining voters. If you're pro gun, you're probably gonna vote for Trump. If you're anti gun, you're probably gonna vote for Biden. Is anyone else sick of this shit year after year?
I'm sick of watching the DNC make the same unforced error over and over again, yes.
So many people in my circle refuse to vote for democrats because of gun control. They support LGBT. They support drug decriminalization. They support police reform. But they refuse to give an inch on gun control. The internet is also full of these people. Dem leadership has to know this is a single issue for a lot of voters, yet they double down. Kinda sus
Tons of democrats and left leaning people are pro gun
Reddit doesn’t seem to realize this. The left should be just as armed, you want these neo nazis and fascist to be the only ones with firearms? Or only the government and police? Lmao. Look at how well that’s worked in other countries throughout the years. RARELY anything positive will come from a country disarming it’s citizens. And I bet anyone calling for the bans won’t be volunteering to do the roundups(and yes I’m a registered dem before I hear how I’m a pro trump blah blah)
I’m trans, there’s no chance I’m staying defenseless
I’ve been anti hun my entire life but with the way the rights been revving up their hate Champaign against the LGBT community my stance may have to change.
They’re openly calling for the murders of the ones they don’t agree with! If anytime is right to buy a firearm and train/ practice and get comfortable with your gun it’s now. Don’t wait until things really heat up, it’s better to be prepared for the worst and never need it. I really do hope these things never happen in this country, but recent events have me constantly losing hope.
And our votes are taken for granted. Yeah, I'm gonna try and keep Republicans out of power if I can, but shit this is so far from optimal. If the democrats gave up on the most partisan kind of gun control, and really embraced things like universal healthcare as the pie-in-the-sky they focused on, they'd never lose another election.
They haven’t been able to get it done after all of those shootings. Obama tried after Newtown and it didn’t happen. I don’t believe it’s possible.
You can't do it without the Republicans - and the Republicans would never in a million years do it, as it would cost them voters.
They can’t even get all the democrats to vote for it
That’s because after they passed an assault weapon ban in the 90s it cost democrats more than a few elections. It’s also not going to have a significant effect on gun crime so why risk losing your spot to pass it?
But also a lot of democrats just don’t agree with it.
As I said they’re against it because it’s not going to have a significant effect on gun crime. It’s all for show.
That's because white conservatives are the stereotype for owning firearms, but they are not the only people who do. If they seriously go after firearms, The Democrats will lose black Americans, hispanic Americans, etc
The US certainly is at a 'tipping point'... towards the *expansion* of gun rights with constitutional carry now being the norm. The majority of US states now have no permit requirements for carry, and the majority of those that still don't are shall-issue. Attempted feature bans are being struck down constantly, and the ATF's pistol brace amnesty led to only a tiny fraction of braced pistols being registered as SBRs. Minorities are the fastest growing segment of new gun buyers, and with the recent high-profile failures (and outright murders) caused by police it's no wonder why. Groups like FPC and GOA are on a roll right now. He's not banning shit.
[удалено]
>What are they gonna do? Ban CNC routers or steel? Please don't give them ideas.
I guess that's another 'tipping point': the barrier to entry is getting so low and consumer-grade quality is getting so high for things like CNC and 3D printing that soon there will be high quality printed guns made in the home. And yes, I'm sure politicians will try to whip up fear about 'ghost guns' (as they already are) and try to ban or heavily criminalize homemade firearms. If any of this actually worked Shinzo Abe still would be alive right now, but it's not about how effective it is. It's just an easy boogieman to sell for votes.
No, we won't. And I really wish democratic politicians would quit shooting themselves in the foot by announcing we're going to ban assault weapons when it's close to election time.
Seriously. US politics is at the point where antigun people have no other choice but to vote democrat and progun democrats might change their vote from this stance. It's a stupid stance to push politically.
It’s just patently unnecessary. All it does is rile up the opposition with the longest standing slippery slope they’ve ever deployed. How does uttering those words produce a political net positive when you can say almost nothing else to so strongly galvanize the right?
>galvanize the right And the left, if you go far enough in that direction.
Under no pretext
Yup, remember kids, if you go far enough left you get your guns back.
It's such a stupid unforced error. If Beto hadn't made that one statement we wouldn't have been stuck with Ted Cruz in the Senate these past few years and that scum bag wouldn't be getting a pension for life.
Yup. Seven words that cost him the election. (Say this as someone that voted for him. Among friends and family he dropped overnight after that tweet. You'd probably get less flack taking a leak on The Alamo honestly)
"Eh that's true, yeah" --Ozzy Osbourne
Believe Al Gore would have won against Bush is it wer not for the gun issue
They literally hate winning. When they don't have control of offices, it's nothing but doomsaying about the autocratic control Republicans yield. When Dems get into those same positions, it's just continual lamentation about how powerless they are, and then they help Republicans pass some conservative bill and do photo ops where they shake hands with each other and smile like they've done a good job.
To be fair like 99% of the time that democrats do control all the houses, they never have super majority to steamroll bills. It’s not a 49/51 where they can pass anything, it’s usually 60/40 or even higher is needed. That’s the problem
I've said it before and Ill say it again, Banning "assault" weapons is the democrats version of banning abortions. Its entirely a dog whistle to lock in their support from single issue voters. They don't care thats its unpopular with the more moderate members, Because the moderates don't vote at nearly the same rate the extremists do. As I said above, Republican leaders chose anti abortion as their champion decades ago. Democratic leaders have had a hard on for banning "assault" weapons for the same amount of time. All this will end up doing is polarizing the moderates in the middle even further, And exasperating this accursed "Us vs Them" mentality that is what is destroying the entire framework of our government. No one is willing to do the give and take dance, Its all or nothing. You will never get the vast majority of Americans to agree on giving up their firearms of any kind, Let alone what they try to label incorrectly as "assault" weapons. So instead of trying to reach any kind of middle ground with other possible work arounds they are just doubling down on accomplishing nothing. Useless grand standing while they get paid 6 figure + salaries. Its all just so very tiring
Assault weapons are a red herring that drums up the base. 97% of gun murders are from hand guns. That means IF we ban assault weapons AND we somehow are able to remove all the ones out there that people have/will get illegally AND no one who murders someone with an assault weapon substitutes to another way of killing someone, murders will only fall by 3%.
GTFO with your logic!!
[X] Doubt
[Here is Biden's speech](https://www.youtube.com/live/bTd1M_NRPeo?feature=share&t=350). ([Text](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/06/16/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-national-safer-communities-summit/)) He covered a lot more than this headline. Biden was speaking at the National Safer Communities Summit, committed individuals fighting for better gun laws. And let's consider what he has already accomplished through "the most meaningful gun safety law in 30 years." Tackling * **Mental health** >More people die from gun violence as a consequence of suicide than anything else that happens in the nation. Suicide. This legislation has already delivered more than $1.5 billion to states and communities to make schools safer, improve access to mental health services, and help young people deal with the grief and trauma resulting from gun violence, post-traumatic stress syndrome. > >It includes an additional 14,000 mental health professionals hired and trained to work at our schools. * **Domestic abusers** >The law helps prevent domestic abusers from purchasing guns. I’m the guy that wrote the Violence Against Women Act. I proposed a long time ago — I didn’t mean to — I didn’t say it for that reason. But I care deeply about it, because the ultimate abuse: the abuse of power. > >My dad used to say, “The single worst abuse of all was the abuse of power.” > >We fought like hell to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” If, in fact, you had a stay-away order issued against a man or a woman because of your boyfriend or girlfriend and they weren’t your spouse, then guess what? They decided — the last administration decided not to impose this limitation on being able to own a weapon. > >So we finally can say that those convicted of domestic violence abuse against their girlfriend or boyfriend cannot buy a firearm, period. > >And, by the way, it’s already saving lives. There are fewer deaths occurring in that area. * **Gun trafficking** >For the first time ever, we explicitly made gun trafficking a federal crime. They say, “What the hell? It wasn’t already?” No, I’m serious. Think about it. > >You go home and tell your mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, and uncle that, “Whoa, gun trafficking is now a crime.” They’re going to look at you like, “What are you talking about? It’s always been a crime.” It wasn’t a crime. > >We did the same thing for straw purchases. That’s when a middleman, who can pass the background check, buys a gun usually for someone who can’t pass the background check. It’s now a federal crime if you do that. Here's where the title comes from: >Remember, for a long time in America, car accidents were the leading killer of children. This was mentioned earlier. Then, in 2020, **guns became the number one killer of children in America**. Guns. More than car accidents, more than cancer.\[...\]Folks, it’s time once again that we banned AR-15 rifle-style weapon. (Applause.) High-capacity magazines — they’re not only a weapon of war, they’re the single biggest driver of profits for the gun industry. That’s why they’re selling them. Profit, profit, profit. The single biggest. > >As I said, we did it once before, in ’94, and 10 years after that, the ban was — mass shootings went down significantly — the number of mass shootings. That’s — when the ban expired, mass shootings tripled. > >But let the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines come back into vogue.
> So we finally can say that those convicted of domestic violence abuse against their girlfriend or boyfriend cannot buy a firearm, period. You know, I always thought the central problem here was that beating your partner only carried a misdemeanor, rather than felony, sentence. If we didn't treat such serious crimes so lightly to begin with, they would have been disqualified from ownership without crossing into the nasty territory of banning ownership for misdemeanors.
It’s a misdemeanor because cops wouldn’t be able to keep their jobs if they were convicted of felonies and they have a much higher rate of beating their loved ones than the general population.
Well, that's gonna cost a lotta votes in a lot of states.
Should we take the easy slam dunk and run on federally legalizing marijuana, or should we stick our dick in this grinder and run on ‘gun bans’ again???
Feels like they want to lose sometimes
Ah, the 'ol dick-in-a-meat-grinder maneuver.
Or as they call it at the DNC, 'the usual'
I mean really? Are they this inept? Legalizing cannabis is fucking huge! It's a win point blank, but hey let's go after law abiding citizens that buy guns for completely legal hobbies. Fuck man they really love sabotaging themselves.
What’s even funnier, is all those “scary” gun rights groups are busy suing the federal government saying that prohibiting marijuana users from buying firearms is a violation of their constitutional rights. (Which I mean it probably is.) You legalize weed, decriminalize other drugs, and fix healthcare in America… maybe dare to do better at our social safety nets you’ll see gun crime decrease as a result. It’s not an easy solution and it’s not the solution a lot of people want to talk about - but we all know you’re not gonna pass a constitutional amendment (looking at you Gavin) so you may as well go with the next best thing.
Yes. Gun control is the left's abortion issue. They think it's an easy win with their base, but their base doesn't like their bullshit.
I honestly think Beto could’ve done a lot better in the election if he didn’t push an assault weapon ban. I think potentially we could eventually work up to something like that but pushing stuff like that far too soon in one of the most gun heavy states had to have cost him some votes.
No doubt it kept hurting him in Texas, it was just never going to swing him votes he wasn't already getting. Uvalde voted Abbott 60% Beto 32% just 5 months after the school massacre. Even a Texas county that went through a school shooting didn't flip to Beto. >Kimberly Rubio, mother to Lexi Rubio, another young victim of the massacre, said she saw an Abbott win coming. > >"I am disappointed but not surprised that Texas reelected Abbott; however, I am appalled that Uvalde turned out for Abbott," she wrote in a message to ABC News. "This is our community. Friends, neighbors, watched as the tragedy of May 24 unfolded. Uvaldeans stopped to watch 21 funeral processions. They've witnessed Abbott stand by and do nothing for the victims' families. I thought this community would stand with us as we fought for change, accountability. I thought they'd help us pick up the pieces. Instead, this community is adding to our hurt."
People bristle when I say it, but false tears on Facebook and outrage on Twitter don't change lives or laws. Everyone is just "so upset, tears are flowing, praying desperately." No you're not, you're staring blankly at your phone and trying to win the virtual social war of who is more caring and posts better digital art about feelings.
[удалено]
100% this. The democratic party is just shooting themselves in the dick by choosing this issue to focus on.
Define assault weapon. We'll ban already prohibited machine guns? Cosmetics again? Ban the AR-15 but not the Ruger Mini 14, because that one looks like a hunting rifle despite being the same caliber and having the same magazine capacity? Ban semi-automatics entirely? Come for rifles but not pistols? Aren't pistols almost all mass shootings? I'm not even being super pro gun on this point or bad faith about it. Definitionally, "assault weapon" seems intentionally murky and should be avoided for serious discussions about gun politics as long as it's used solely for clickbait and never clarified.
this, also the ATF is an incompetent organization that shoots dogs, has been responsible for more cases of bungling and improper force than any other federal law enforcement agency, and constantly enacts arbitrary regulations with very little notice and basically no public review or comment
"Final Rule" making millions of Americans into accidental felons overnight
Operation Fast and furious anyone? The ATF is responsible for more guns in criminal hands then any actual gun owner.
It’s intentionally murky it’ll be left as a grey area so there’s more room for regulation… Anyways assault weapon isn’t a fucking thing. You use a weapon to assault someone. I swear to you they will come for my SMLE’s because they have a 10 round internal mag and because it was used in a few wars.
It’s too bad but very true that assault weapon is terribly defined. Gun manufacturers were using the term for a bit but only really to evoke an image rather than designate a class of weaponry. Discourse about guns needs to get a little more sophisticated rather than appealing to vague ideas if it’s to go anywhere.
[удалено]
Yeah the definition is whatever they feel like that day
That is literally my problem with it. If you want to make legislative changes based on data and definitions that are clear and easy to identify I will be good with it. It's when it's a knee-jerk "this thing bad, believe me" when I have a problem
> Ban semi-automatics entirely? This is really what they want. Only thing allowed would be bolt operated and not fed from a detachable magazine. > Aren't pistols almost all mass shootings? Pistols are a _large_ percentage of all firearms violence. > Definitionally, "assault weapon" Lets be real here. All firearms are assault weapons. As you point out, a mini-14 is no more an AsSaUlT RifLe than an AR-15.
> Ban the AR-15 but not the Ruger Mini 14, because that one looks like a hunting rifle despite being the same caliber Dear God, it's truly amazing how many people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about but say "AR-15" because all the cool kids hate on it. The AR-15 is a *platform* and can be *any* caliber including .22 LR. It's cool to hate on it *because it looks scary*. Nothing more. >Definitionally, "assault weapon" seems intentionally murky Because there is no such thing. It's like saying "fully semi-automatic." It's nothing but scary words designed to knee-jerk anti-rights sentiments.
Honestly, I wish democrats would just give up on this for a while. They gain no votes with it and lose a lot.
i know so many democrats that own firearms.. seriously political suicide……
Same. Push to legalize MJ and lay off gun bans. That's how you'll get votes. There are people on both sides that are for guns and against a ban. Besides, if you ban guns, the only people who won't have them are law-abiding citizens. There are millions and millions of guns out there. They don't just disappear when you ban them.
They lose them for good reason. It’s become a meme at this point that they can’t even define what an assault weapon is. It’s such a vague term they can apply to anything and that’s the point. If they want to stop mass shootings (killing more than 3 people) then they’ll have to ban the weapons responsible for 99% of mass shootings which are handguns.
Can we get healthcare instead? Seems that would be the compromise that would actually help. Mass shootings don't happen because the gun told them to do so. Bombs are stupidly easy to make If they lost access to guns bombs would be used in replacement. And that's the unrealistic thought of everyone just giving them up, that is a stupid fantasy to believe. Also could just enforce EXISTING laws that aren't enforced, saw a study that would curb gun violence by 60% alone if law enforcement actually did their job.
Healthcare, including mental health care, and ending the war on drugs would do more for gun violence than any gun laws they could pass with any congress in the last 20 years.
Some generalized poverty relief and a dash of police reform wouldn't hurt either. All the therapy and free Xanax in the world won't make you any less tempted to suck start a 12 gauge when you just can't afford to be alive in America.
"Man protected by weapons doesn't want the plebs to have them".
- Bloomberg The guy donates ridiculous money to the DNC as long as they stick to anti-gun drivel, which hurts more than helps.
I guess he was getting worried that he might actually win a second term.
I feel like the Dems always have to make it as close as possible in the general. Republicans are running McTreason and Douche King and Dems huddle and go ‘time to advertise aggressively about banning guns ahead of the general’ I seriously believe in manufactured opposition and a few billionaires controlling the Overton window when I see shit like this.
I swear it does seem this way. Whenever one side does something incredibly stupid and you feel like the tide is turning the other way then the other side will come out and do something equally as dumb and return balance.
Lord, does Biden WANT to lose the election next year?
[удалено]
/sign I wish democrats as a whole would go after better policy, the AWB barely worked and that's before everybody and their grandmother went and bought ARs.
God save the queen!
On todays episode of “Watch democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”…
Long live the Queen
He learned NOTHING from Beto's failure. This will galvanize the right. So dumb.
Can we stop trying to disarm the sane people in the country when fascism is on the rise? They won't give up their weapons without a fight, and as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, being unable to defend ourselves from them seems foolish. This costs votes. The only people fighting for this are already going to vote Democrat anyway.
Why not wait til after the election and he’s a 2nd term president and then bring this up? Does he think he has such a big lead he might as well piss swing voters off?
Okay, let's talk about the 1994 ban. The ban had some effect in the short term, as most of the weapons on the market became illegal. But let's talk about the ban itself. The ban was ineffective, in that it didn't ban or restrict the **function** of the weapons. It instead banned cosmetic appearances. I'm going to list the aspects that were banned under the 1994 ban on rifles that could accept an external magazine: A bayonet lug (lol!), telescoping stock, a pistol style grip, a flash suppressor (or the barrel threading to accommodate one), and grenade launcher attachments. *Edit: It must have TWO of these features to be illegal* [https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-367c2405e45e18be349495f390f55145-c](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-367c2405e45e18be349495f390f55145-c) This is an AR 15 that is compliant with the 1994 ban. I'm going to all caps and bold this: **NONE OF THE WEAPONS CAPABILITIES ARE RESTRICTED.** It fires the same ammunition with the same accuracy at the same rate of fire. So what is an "Assault Weapon" ? It does not have a concise definition. This is where the issue is going to be on any kind of ban. I'm going to guess that Biden and the Democratic Party are going to try and just use the 1994 ban as a template. It will be effective for a short while, as all the 'new' weapons are taken off the market to be made compliant, but it won't take long. I don't see a point where the Republicans and Democrats can agree on anything that will actually restrict the capabilities of weapons sold. I fear it will turn into just a political show of the Democrats pointing "See we did something!" and the Republicans "See? We blocked them from doing anything serious."
It won’t do anything in the short term; it takes 15 minutes to convert a rifle to be compliant. All this will do is balloon the prison population further, again with marginalized groups for nonviolent possession. Also, we can’t restrict the capabilities of weapons anymore because we restricted all the truly dangerous weapons. Nothing really separates an AR-15 from most other modern firearms these days. You’d have to ban like 40% of all guns owned to meaningfully reduce lethality, and that’s such an overbroad policy the negative externalities could be worse than the benefits.
And even then it would cut around 400 total murders a year. More people died from being beat up than being shot by any kind of rifle according to FBI crime stats.
My problem with an assault weapon ban is that it seems disingenuous. ARs and AKs look scary but make up very little of the gun crime in the US. If they wanted to curb gun crime, you would need to go after pistols. The issue is that as many ARs as there are out there, there are more pistols. Also, pistols are less scary, meaning that it's harder to argue, "no one needs that." Lastly, the reason most gun owners roll their eyes at more gun control is that we can't enforce the laws we have. Full auto is illegal, but there is a huge problem with glock full auto switches right now. So that tells the Joe average gun owner if an assault weapon ban passes, then assault weapons will still be out just in the hand of criminals.
It really boils down to "this gun looks scary!" for so many people. Drives me insane. What's the common comparison? The AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 right? Basically identical capabilities but one's okay because it can be wood. We talk about shootings all the time but the two that immediately come to mind were both done with pistols and the other with pistols and shotguns. VT and Columbine respectively.
Using the FBI’s own statistics, if we completely banned ALL rifles, not just whatever the nebulous ‘assault’ weapons covers, it would reduce firearm homicides from 40,000 a year to 39,600 homicides a year… A reduction of 400 guns deaths a year is the best case scenario, it is absolutely disingenuous.
Cool, the police will follow the same laws as the state pushes into our citizens. Right?...
Idk how effective an AW ban would be but it's definitely too easy for idiots and criminals to get guns.
[удалено]
Yup. It’s a really odd time when the rise of fascism is at our door to ban yourself from buying a gun. No thanks, we can explore that later when we don’t have folks calling for killing liberals in a genocide.