this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
271 points (98.2% liked)

politics

26336 readers
3421 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
 

But not alcohol or anything else...I wonder what demographic he's trying to target

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Never threaten.

Even if you have the ability to defend yourself against a bully that is motivated by piss and vinegar, that doesn't mean you want a target on your back or for them to see you coming.

My guess is that many of the people who are willing to resist kinetically aren't going to say anything or threaten anyone.

One day, a thug kicks down the wrong door and punches his own ticket. The next day the paranoia grips the jackboots and they start passing gun laws in a hurry.

Lots of cold dead hands after that and no one is willing to volunteer to be first in line to kick off that process.

[–] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Historically, this is why police come after you while you're in a car, at work, or otherwise out and about. I'm curious whether, if it ever came to that point, a court would approve seizure* of any records at gun ranges or otherwise to gather data on people who might have guns (being very specific with that 'might have' wording), and then issue warrants to seize said people on the street, and then issue search warrants for the home. It would be a pretty wild reversal of evidence and probable cause. The politicians and cops would try to sell it to the maga fools as being the only way to keep cops safe from antifa terrorists, and I'd bet they would buy it.

That (judges signing off on such wild bullshit) would be so far into fascist territory that we might as well be at the bottom of fascism lake.

*This would probably be a grand jury subpoena, which both has lower evidence needs and relies on the reasoning that your transactions/records with a business are not as private as other areas of your life. Cops give these to DAs all the time to gather evidence on a case without the need to go to a judge, so blaming the courts here might be too hasty.