Anonymous #1 6w

I doubt he actually said that lol

1

Anonymous #2 6w

It hasn't even been taken down

1

Anonymous #2 6w

It is real https://x.com/ZohranKMamdani/status/1529223283647848448?lang=en

1

Anonymous #1 6w

I mean idk. I get the point, as other countries have done the same. I think that it’s a very complicated issue because compared to other countries we generally have more uses for guns bc so many hunters are in the nation, we have more people who enjoy shooting ranges, etc. I’d be down for better background checks, regulations, mental health screenings, etc and see how that works out then go from there

1

Anonymous #1 6w

There’s a difference between a politicians personal beliefs and their actual polices. How is the mayor of New York gonna take away your 2A rights? You’re just fishing for a reason to dislike him

5

Anonymous #4 6w

No I was very open to his ideas until this. I don't care if it's a personal opinion, policy goal, real implementation, or whatever sense of the matter: If you want to get rid of my rights, you're not a politician that's getting my vote, and you are a politician that's getting my dissent.

1

Anonymous #4 6w

The mayor of New York City is also heavily influential of firearms policy across the country, NYC literally caused the Bruen decision

1

Anonymous #4 6w

This was before he ran for mayor. It is part of his broader long-term agenda which might never happen. But he’s said stuff like “seizing the means of production” before which is socialism but will not be part of his mayoral agenda

2

Anonymous OP 6w

I meant until I was aware of this

1

Anonymous #1 6w

That’s the supreme courts influence, not NYC. In that case, NYC has just as much influence as every local government in the country

1

Anonymous #1 6w

And also the modern interpretation of the 2A is a bastardization of what the founder intended

1

Anonymous #1 6w

I would rather there be no guns. This might be a mistake on my philosophy or something, but I personally just don’t care if I have the right to a gun. Id rather be safer by no others having guns either, and that lets British police be able to not typically carry guns

1

Anonymous #4 6w

Except not every local government is free to infringe upon firearms rights as they see fit, many are bound by their own state constitutions against doing so, and most have an interpretation of the 2A that doesn't allow this.

1

Anonymous #4 6w

Also Bruen would haven't even been a case to rule on without NYC infringing

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Open to changing my mind tho I guess, yes it could just be I’m too small minded but I genuinely just do not care about gun rights (I care about gun violence victims)

1

Anonymous OP 6w

Even disregarding guns, if we had British style police officers here people would just beat the shit out of them and do whatever they want

1

Anonymous OP 6w

But good to know, I oppose you politically now.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

I mean there ARE police with firearms but not every street cop needs them

1

Anonymous OP 6w

People already try to and succeed at beating the shit out of our cops while they carry guns lol, doesn't seem wise

0

Anonymous #1 6w

Maybe we ought to follow some of the UK's other policing ideas like implementing digital ID, installing mass surveillance, and restricting free speech

0

Anonymous #1 6w

“Maybe we ought to let the events of 1984 play out and see if it turns out good this time”

1

Anonymous #4 6w

No developed nation needs silly things like freedom of self expression or privacy, look at how low crime is in the UK.

0

Anonymous #1 6w

It’s a good thing that the USA is doing digital ID, mass surveillance and restricting free speech too, but at least we have guns

5

Anonymous OP 6w

Once we get to 12k arrests over social media posts per year the crime rates start to drop off heavily I'm pretty sure

1

Anonymous #1 6w

(Or maybe, just a thought, you can't take any random policy decision in a country that has had a lower crime rate for centuries and blame the lower crime rate on that policy decision 🤯)

1