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
As soon as I see the term "assault weapon" all credibility goes right out the window.
As soon as I see the pedant arguing semantics, their credibility goes right out the window.
It's not tho. Use specific terms and u don't look like an incompetent fool.
Dismissing someone's argument over semantics is trivial objection that doesn't engage in the actual argument. You understand perfectly well what the argument is, and that it's addressing a different issue than categories of armament.
Plus, declaring your opponent an "incompetent fool" to dismiss their argument is a bonus ad hominem fallacy.
It is not semantics. People honestly don't know what defines an assault rifle vs a semi auto. Also looking incompetent isn't me saying that to dismiss their argument it is them simply looking like they don't know what they're talking about and thus their own actions make them able to be disregarded.
You really don't understand logical fallacies or how they work it seems.
Well I will agree that one of us does not have a grasp on logical fallacies.
People do not NEED to know the textbook definition of an assault rifle to know that a weapon designed for maximum carnage should be regulated. You also don't NEED to hear an accurate reference to a specific weapon to understand their argument. You know what they mean.
By outright dismissing them because they haven't defined a term to your satisfaction, you are not engaging in good faith.
If you really were interested in discussion, you would respond to establish a standard definition and then, based on that definition, provide your counter argument.
Don't forget the fearsome "deadlier-than-military-weaponry, AR-15 style assault shotguns"
I spent about two minutes trying to come up with a good joke about this one, but honestly I think it speaks for itself
What's really funny is that the 12g built off the AR frame doesn't actually qualify for the "assault weapon" description, so said AR-15 style assault shotgun is a greenlight.
They characterize semi-automatic shotguns like they're this brand new, evil gun lobby invention, thought up to sell to crazed lunatics who can't get their kicks just shooting regular bullets into school children any more
Meanwhile, people have been shooting ducks with the Browning Auto-5 since literally the year 1900, and it only stopped production in 1998
But that's made of wood and doesn't have the shoulder thing that goes up, so it's not scary
What else is it? Definitely not a defense weapon lol
how is it not a defensive weapon?
Semi automatic rifle? You know...what it actually ..is
Well that was easy.
Would an attacher be any less credible if they murdered people with a handgun rather than a rifle ? what is the point you're trying to make ? don't people still die ? is the ammo type really relevant here ?
People who don't like the term "assault rifle" think it basically means "scary-looking rifle" rather than "particularly deadly rifle". In New York state law, for example,
So a semiauto rifle in .223 Remington with a wooden stock is a "varmit hunting rifle", but simply giving it a black folding stock makes it an "assault rifle".
Honestly, things like NYS's limits on magazine size makes more sense to me than banning telescoping stocks or a second pistol grip.
More "mass shootings" actually DO happen with hand guns, it's just not part of the agenda the media wants to push.
I didn't say anything about ammo type. See this is the problem. You have no clue what you're actually talking about here.