this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
112 points (99.1% liked)

politics

30278 readers
2556 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Sane storage laws should be a requirement, especially around minors, Canadians can keep a (non-restricted) shotgun under their bed so long as a lock is on it and the ammo is locked and stored separately.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

All the criminals wait for me to unlock and load a shotgun, they're real amenable about that sort of thing.

A secured firearm Is a good idea, that said a locked away firearm is useless in any meaningful self defense action. Secure ≠ locked

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

All the criminals wait for me to unlock and load a shotgun, they're real amenable about that sort of thing.

I don’t disagree at all with this statement, that is the reason I keep a bayonet at the end of my shotgun.

A secured firearm Is a good idea, that said a locked away firearm is useless in any meaningful self defense action. Secure ≠ locked

This is a privilege for Americans, unfortunately as a Canadian if I were to draw my shotgun or rifle upon someone breaking into my house I need to prove there was a threat to life and that it was not just an attempt at theft, otherwise the courts may deem my force excessive.

[–] krox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

I need to prove there was a threat to life and that it was not just an attempt at theft, otherwise the courts may deem my force excessive.

This is how the states work, I'm in a deep red state and if your defense is "they were stealing" you'll go to jail for murder. You have to believe your life was in danger and a jury has to agree

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I mean people are mistaken about that here too the same is true the lines are just increasingly blurred. Technically speaking it is not legal to use deadly force against a thief, there needs to be a reasonable fear of bodily injury for yourself or anyone else for that matter. If someone breaks in and you're safe and you know they're just taking stuff you can't pop out and start blasting.

[–] Fishnoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Now is not the time to restrict private firearm access, especially for blue/purple states the feds won't announce their illegal raids in advance, so firearms have to be at the ready at all times to be useful

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 5 points 5 days ago

The faster they disarm us, the faster they ramp up authoritarianism! We'll be helpless, and they'll be laughing.

[–] scops@reddthat.com -3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, by all means, make this mandatory in households with minors. Anywhere else, this is a tax to make it harder for poor people to make use of their second amendment rights

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

In PA, where this bill is from, the state police already give out free gun locks, many other local police departments and community organizations do the same

A simple cable lock can be had for about $5 from Walmart and fills the requirement, and you can find them for even less if you hunt around a little, and this bill is also making gun locks and safes exempt from sales tax.

There's also at least a handful of gun brands that include a lock as part of the standard equipment their guns come with, and at least a few gun stores that will happily give you a free lock with your purchase.

And while you may not have children, can you truly say that there will never be a child in your home? Do you have friends or relatives with kids or who may have them someday? Is it possible that they may stop by someday and your attention may be distracted from the kid for 5 minutes while they wander off and find your unsecured gun? Do you maybe have a neighbor with a special needs child that might wander into your house when you left the back door open to air out the kitchen after burning your dinner? If you don't, can you say that will always be the case?

Could you live with yourself if that happens and the kid kills himself knowing that you could have prevented it with a $5 (or free) lock?

[–] scops@reddthat.com 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If you own a gun for home defense, gun locks are useless. The gun needs to be loaded and needs to be accessible via quick release mechanism that is usable in high stress situations. Ideally a fingerprint lock, but at the very least a button combination. Those aren't cheap.

The one or two times a year I have a friend over with their kids, then I DO secure my firearms. I believe in more stringent gun control laws, and that gun ownership comes with a higher level of responsibility (and training, ideally), but securing a firearm can be as simple as hiding it out of reach of a child and separating it from the ammunition. Any law that requires people to spend money or significantly reduce their ability to defend themselves in order to comply with it deserves additional scrutiny.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

And the bill includes a carve-out for that, if you're close enough to readily retrieve it, it doesn't need to be locked.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago

If your concern is personal safety, you are better served keeping your gun unloaded and locked away. Statistically speaking, you are way more likely to use it to shoot yourself (accidently or otherwise) than you are to need it to defend yourself from a home invader.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

In PA, where this bill is from, the state police already give out free gun locks, many other local police departments and community organizations do the same

Don’t manufactures include trigger/chamber locks with the firearm upon purchase? I know they do for us up here in Canada but only because it’s legally required for safe storage laws.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I believe that's left up to the manufacturers and state law.

I believe that PA Law already requires handguns but not long guns to be sold with a lock, and I believe that only applies to dealers, not private sales (in most circumstances you would still need to go through a dealer to do the transfer of a handgun for a private sale, but I don't think they need to provide a lock in those circumstances)

[–] sol6_vi@lemmy.makearmy.io 2 points 4 days ago

Disarm the proletariat amirite

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago

I guess they'll have to go check all the registered Democrats homes without warrants.

Start calling today!