this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
222 points (91.4% liked)

politics

28130 readers
2386 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/03/jeanine-pirro-second-amendment-washington-00762347

It happened a few days ago and she walked the comments back within 24 hours, apparently.

John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s legislative arm, said Pirro’s remarks “highlight the need for Congress to pass H.R. 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” That bill, introduced last year by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), would allow anyone with a state-issued concealed carry license to carry a firearm in any other state.

The cynic in me says it’s staged to drum up support for this deranged bill.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That bill, introduced last year by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), would allow anyone with a state-issued concealed carry license to carry a firearm in any other state.

While I think laws on concealed carry being more consistent across states would be a good thing, this is a terrible idea. Laws across states aren't consistent--one state may require some sort of education, for example, while another does not. The one that requires education obviously shouldn't be recognizing a CCL from a state that doesn't.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The compromise would be that a certain minimum standard Would be required and if it states Concealed carry per meets that standard then it would be recognized Everywhere and if Is too loose then other states could freely deny reciprocity, states would probably have the federally compliant version and this in-state only version, or just get rid of the end State only version leading to de facto Federal standards for concealed carry comma probably set to equal that of California or New Jersey or something So that they have no reason to complain

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

A better idea would be to arrest every state legislature who passed constitutional violating laws about guns and throw them in jail, much like should have been done for the violation of the civil-rights act. If there are no consequences for states passing unconstitutional laws, then what is the purpose of the constitution in the first place?

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What about states rights? What a bunch of bullshit politics have become.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 4 points 2 days ago

psst "States Rights" only really became an argument from the right wing when passing the civil rights acts.