this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
89 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29767 readers
2190 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger has signed legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms, prompting immediate lawsuits from gun-rights groups.

The limits on “ assault firearms,” as they are described by the legislation, are among two dozen new restrictions and regulations on guns enacted by the Democratic governor in her first few months in office. That marks a sharp policy reversal from her Republican predecessor, who had vetoed many similar measures.

“Firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets,” Spanberger said in a statement Friday. “We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe.”

The new gun restrictions move Virginia closer to the likes of California, Illinois and New York, which similarly have full Democratic control of their legislatures and governors’ offices. They also highlight a continued national divide on gun policy, as various Republican-led states have taken steps to relax firearm restrictions that they describe as an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

What exactly are they going to try and go to trial for? They'll still have guns, they just won't have these really bad ones. What's the fucking point in going to court over something so pointless? Just live with your stupid guns and STFU. You don't need assault weapons to live. Get over it.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

Why...just why?....Dems are just asking to lose midterms. Stop fucking with gun control shit and focus on the goddamn fascist in power.

Spend your political capital on shit that'll actually make a difference in not just gun but our overall violence numbers.

Raise the minimum wage

Increase education funding

Hire and pay teachers more

Stop techbros from planting DCs everywhere and firing their workers.

End the for profit prison systems

Get single payer healthcare passed

Kick ICE the fuck out of your state

End the war on drugs, which targets minorities the most

Enshrine abortion rights into law

Create proper safety nets for our most vulnerable citizens

Strengthen worker protection rights(unions)

Repeal anti-lgbtq+ laws

There is sooo much they could focus on that would solve our violence in general, but they go for this shit which just pushes away single issue voters and has others scratching their heads wondering wtf they're doing.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I got a funny feeling that they are wording these laws dumb as fuck purposefully. Like no one can define an assault weapon. An assault rifle has a definition of a gun with select fire, which is already illegal for most people to own!

"I got me ol' assault musket in da shed. reckon I oughta bring it to the buyback program."

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

These laws are written by groups that want to ban guns outright. They don't have interest in actually learning anything about them, they just want to make it sound as scary as possible. That way it seems like a common sense baby step towards a full ban.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 2 minutes ago

What if.....

::dawns tinfoil hat::

It's chuds playing 5-d chess and passing poorly worded laws intentionally so they get struck down in court to set a precedent?

[–] soratoyuki@piefed.social 3 points 7 hours ago

The gun laws we need most are gun laws to disarm the police. Magically, they're always exempted, even in personal capacities, even in the context of red-flag laws. It's not like the police have a documented history of collective domestic abuse or anything.

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Will it hold up in court? Who knows... Don't forget she's vetoing a bill to allow public employees to collectively bargain with the government.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Good, she already raised the minimum wage, the state needs to save up money.

[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 41 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Ohhhh theres the 2A folks, thought they all been tread on to death. Oops.

Morons.

[–] etherphon@piefed.world 12 points 11 hours ago

Is there a bigger group of babies than gun rights advocates?

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Guns do not hold the government in check, trade unions do.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Good thing she vetoed their collective bargaining too

[–] Switorik@sh.itjust.works 8 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

It's easier to ban them than it is to fix the actual issue.

I am a fan of making them much harder to obtain. Make it hunting license style or something that you can apply for that requires an evaluation and a gun safety course.

I hope all of this is repealed because it is taking a freedom away from us. I enjoy range day and this is something I've enjoyed for many decades and now is being taken away because of what? This won't stop mental illness from hurting others.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

How is banning them not fixing the issue? Less guns means less change of getting killed by a gun

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 3 points 41 minutes ago

Because 95+% of gun violence is via handguns and not the scary black rifles anti-gun groups say.

[–] MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What you're proposing just makes too much sense. But also, if I understood correctly, nothing is being taken away from you. It looks like this would just ban the ability to buy, sell, transfer, and manufacture specific stuff like foregrips, collapsible stocks, and magazines with a capacity higher than 15. What you already have is yours.

I'd like to see gun registration and insurance the way we have for cars. I work with a few gun nuts and it's fucking ludicrous how many guns they have. One guy has 29. He actively hunts, and he doesn't just hunt one thing, so I can understand that different tools are built for different jobs and he needs a few to be effective at everything. But realistically he only needs like 5.

If we actually wanted to do something about mass shootings, we would do reasonable gun control legislation like we're talking about, but as a supplement to destigmatizing psychological help, making healthcare (including mental healthcare) attainable for all, and ensuring basic needs like food and housing are met. Get that shit done and I'll concede that America is "great again" now. But I'm only hearing a couple of people in office even pretend to be on board with these very basic ideas.

[–] Switorik@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The way it is written now is I can no longer buy a sport .22 pistol because the magazine has the capability of being over 15. This is legal to buy and own in Europe but now illegal in Virginia.

Gun maintenence is a thing. Parts need to be replaced over time. Upgrading or changing out parts is a thing. This is effectively stopping us from replacing certain parts if they break. If I want to sell what I have and buy something else, I can no longer do it.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

For target shooting, a single round capacity is sufficient. You only need multiple rounds if you’re trying to kill something.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Maybe if you don't do shooting sports...but I'm assuming since you're on a .uk instance you've never been near a firearm.

In the USA, we have a lot of shooting sports that are not single shots. They're about speed and precision. Check out 3gun or IDPA.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

People used to play lawn darts too. They got over it.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 30 minutes ago

Yea I forgot how there is an amendment for law darts.

And law darts shouldn't have been banned...dumb people will hurt themselves over bubble wrap if they can.

[–] MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 hours ago

You can absolutely buy smaller capacity magazines for a .22 pistol.

Yes, gun maintenance is a thing. And yes, you can't replace the banned parts. I agree that this ban isn't gonna do anything to change gun violence, but that's because it doesn't do much of anything at all. So what if you can't replace your foregrip or collapsible stock? You still have the gun itself. The only thing this legislation really changes is that people who don't already have these things won't get them, and 20-40 round magazines will phase out as they break and can't be replaced.

You're partially right that you can't sell what you have to buy something else. Just remove these aftermarket parts first. The gun itself seems to still be fully legal.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

A better law would be to restrict the ownership of assault firearms until a person is 23 years old. The reasoning is mental illness or criminal behavior preventing a person from owning firearms would manifest themselves by then.

[–] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Except when it doesn’t. The justice system is disproportionately targets minorities because stacking charges, public defenders, and the threat of egregious sentencing being reduced if one just “takes the deal” is a quadruple win. The accused loses their gun rights, usually their voting rights, can be used for slave labor legally, and the general public sees “felon” and assumes they shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun in the first place. The regime has been pushing Trump Derangement Syndrome and that trans identity is a mental illness, the democrats will get their mental illness red flags passed and the regime will turn right around and use that as an excuse to strip their enemies of their guns. There is currently no legislation that will not be used, abused, and corrupted for their own goals by this regime.

Gun ownership in the US is not about overthrowing your government, it’s about the last resort of protecting yourself and your community when all the Rittenhouses of the nation get told it’s open season on enemies of the state.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Way to many anti-gun people do not understand what you just said.

You nailed it though. Good to see someone else here on lemmy gets it.

[–] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 1 points 6 minutes ago

From the Mulford Act to the flip MAGA made when condemning Alex Pretti for legally carrying the message is clear, rules for thee no me. You can already see it in how cops deal with an armed white man vs an armed black man, one if far more likely to be “talked down”, though in the past few years they have gotten pretty trigger happy with anyone. Gun violence is a problem in the US, but as we head into what’s looking to be elections gerrymandered to hell, Jim Crow tactics, voter intimidation, and probably blatant cheating, I see no reason to believe this regime is going anywhere any time soon. He’s not building a bunker for the security of future presidents, he’s not labeling his enemies as deranged, anti-fascist trans anarchists hellbent on destroying straight white Christian America, he’s telling us what his next target is. He’s always played with his cards showing, daring us to call him out for cheating and rigging the game. He told us what he was going to do to the immigrants, and by extension anybody of color regardless of citizenship, and he did. His goons murder and beat observers in the streets for recording them, or less, then get a million dollar crowdfunded bounty and transfer to another town on taxpayer dollars with the boon of qualified immunity. They control the courts, Congress has been neutered, law enforcement does not serve and protect the community, there’s no shortage of wannabe murderers seeking excuses to pick a fight and take the gamble they’ll be exonerated, and depending on where you live, they will.

And you know what, if I’m wrong and in the next couple of election cycles we vote MAGA out, fucking great!!! But Trump is always blunt about his plans and next he’s coming for his political enemies that aren’t as easily identified by the color of their skin or the sound of their accent.

[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You dont need them. You aren't using them to overthrow our current government, which is why that amendment was there. All that they are being used for is mass shootings.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Pretty much every mass shooting has been done with handguns.

Black plastic rifles, which are in common use, are just the scary thing that anti-2a groups latch onto.

This legislation will do nothing to stop gun violence because almost all gun violence is done with handguns.