this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
196 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19080 readers
4949 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.

The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.

The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Does not being allowed to regulate things you know nothing about also extend to uteruses, the environment, etc?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stop going off topic. You aren't disagreeing with him and presenting a valid argument. You're just trying to change the subject matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm liberal, and I'm saying banning firearms in public is more of a "feel good" measure than it is actually useful. Unless you give pat downs as people leave their house then tons of people will violate this ordinance.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the moment they do, they won't be the "law abiding gun owner" they're always crowing about.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes the good old, make law abiding citizens I don't like... criminals lol what a load of shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a very weird contrast. The environment affects everyone, my neighbors uterus doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Just the first two things that came to mind where the people who will jump up and down about magazines vs clips have no problem with laws regulating things they don't understand.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course it does. You should have the right to have an abortion. You should have the right to refuse vaccination (although private businesses should have the right to refuse to allow you entry or employment if you aren't). You should have the right to own the firearms that work best for you.

You should have the rights to make choices about yourself and your own body that do not cause direct, immediate harm to other people.

If you're going to argue that guns should be illegal because you can kill a person (illegally) with one, then it's just as reasonable to argue that abortion should be illegal because you're killing a person.

The only problem here is that both Republicans and Democrats are inconsistent, but in opposite ways.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go.

And your third doesn't follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

Your fourth paragraph is making conclusions based on the first three, but since they're full of holes, there's nothing to actually support your assertion.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go

Failing to be vaccinated does not cause direct, immediate harm to other people. It's a potential harm that isn't necessarily realized in any given instance.

And your third doesn’t follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

Conservatives argue that a blastocyst is a human, since life starts at conception. Therefore, the conservative argument is that any abortion (aside from spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages) is intentionally causing the death of a human. Don't pretend like you didn't know this, since that's been their entire claim while working the legal angles to overturn Planned Parenthood v Casey (which is what actually overturned Roe v. Wade, not the latest Dobbs decision).

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Conservatives argue that windmills cause cancer, who gives a fuck what they think

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People that want to win elections and actually try to unite people instead of creating more division? People that want to persuade?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah i completely oppose uniting with them whatsoever same as I oppose uniting sex offenders with school boards. Any compromise with them is detrimental.