politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I disagree with this actually. Minorities should be arming up imo, and if you're worried about putting money in Republican pockets, buy privately instead.
If that worked, America would be the safest country in the world for minorities (and by a huge margin). Instead, every few months a far-right extremist uses their legally purchased gun to kill as many minorities as they can.
I'd like to see sources that prove that it's currently happening every few months.
According to the ADL, there were 40 acts of terrorism attributed to the far-right in 2020-2022. So "every few months" was actually an understatement, but I doubt that's what you objected to.
You can follow the link to learn more about who America's gun laws actually arm. Anyone who supports those laws staying unchanged (or made more permissive) inherently supports selling guns to those people since identifying and disarming extremists is a form of gun control.
So if you actually read the link you sent me, you'd see that:
So again, I'd like to see a source with proof that firearms are being used in acts of terrorism to kill specifically minorities at a rate of every few months.
And FWIW, I'm not trying to defend or downplay any terrorist acts by anyone, Republican or not and with a firearm or not. I just don't think it's an argument to be used against arming yourself.
Making them the most commonly used weapon by a significant margin, with arson coming in at only 25%
Are you sure that's what you want? Because it looks to me like you're pretty eager to hold casual speech to rigorous statistical standards (which is textbook sealioning).
You also fixated on it rather than address "if arming minorities worked, why are they no safer in America than Canada, Australia or the UK?", a concept you clearly haven't applied demanded the same standard of proof for.
You'd think guns failing to deliver on their promise to save minorities for 50 years would be all the argument you'd need but if you'd prefer to get in an arms race with the far-right, you do you.