this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
254 points (97.0% liked)

politics

31566 readers
3441 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Friday’s appeals court ruling in the New Jersey case goes further than a July 2024 ruling from a federal judge, who said that the state’s ban on AR-15s specifically was unconstitutional but upheld the provision barring larger magazines.

The third US circuit court of appeals said on Friday in its opinion that the state’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles it deems to be “assault firearms” and its restriction on “large capacity ammunition magazines” were unconstitutional.

New Jersey’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press that the decision is “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect”.

"Gotta maximize the body count of school children"

-These judges, probably

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 months ago (4 children)

It'd be hilarious if a bunch of black people, lgbtq and immigrants started picking these up in droves and then they suddenly revisited this topic.

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Gun control has often been enacted for racist reasons. Yet one more reason to be excited the rights of the people were upheld today.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And gun control is often repealed when the dominant group in society wishes to increase violence against minorities.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Boy that's a real convenient generalization there. Any time the people are allowed more rights it's for racist reasons, therefore more rights should be restricted?

But also the state already has carte blanc to be racist, they have a monopoly on force and justice. They don't need to give the citizens any rights if they just want to be racist.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, you're right. We should never examine why anything happens as long as it increases rights.

You'd be cool with my right to punch you in the face, wouldn't you?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Glad people like you self-select against having dangerous objects in their possession.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

Gun bans started when thr Black Panthers armed up and patrolled their neighborhoods to protect people from cops.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You share values of banning minorities from owning firearms with racist haters? Telling on yourself here...

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Not exactly as I'm a gun owning bi brown guy.