Amid reports the Justice Department is weighing banning transgender people from owning firearms in response to last month’s mass shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic church, the National Rifle Association said Friday it will oppose any blanket rule that limits Second Amendment rights.
Their declaration comes after CNN and other outlets reported that Justice Department leadership is considering whether it can use its rulemaking authority declare that people who are transgender are mentally ill and can lose their rights to possess firearms.
50 Comments
Veedem@lemmy.world · 114 pts · 364d
Weird times when the NRA and trans people share a common goal.
Ledivin@lemmy.world · 95 pts · 364d
The NRA is the lobby group for gun manufacturers, and trans people are relatively well-armed. They would lose sales, that's literally the entirety of their reasoning.
WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com · 55 pts · 364d
Also, bringing attention to attempts to limit guns promotes people buying guns. So, no surprise they'd try to get publicity for this to motivate more trans people to arm themselves.
bizzle@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 363d
More trans people should arm themselves, in fairness.
Quokka@quokk.au · 6 pts · 363d
Having arms is rather handy.
BanMe@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 363d
Bear arms no less
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 1 pts · 363d
I was always bare my arms.
When the sun's out, the guns are out.
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 364d
The NRA is owned by Putin's allies, if not directly.
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 363d
Trump doesn't want armed minorities. Trust me
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 363d
Sorry, did I stutter? Trump isn't in charge, FFS. 🤦🏼♂️
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 363d
No, but you seem to have forgotten that Trump is on Putin's payroll
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 363d
Payroll? Fuckpuppets don't get paid.
Johnmannesca@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 361d
Also, limiting the sale of anything creates a perceived scarcity, which also can tend to increase sales. It appears that's already playing in their favor as well.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 363d
The enemy of my enemy and all that shit.
apftwb@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 363d
A broken clock...
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · 90 pts · 363d
It's nice to see the gun organization likes guns more than they hate trans people
sad_detective_man@leminal.space · 38 pts · 363d
really surprising, they've been given similar choices before and have historically fought against the 2a rights of minorities
billwashere@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 363d
Honestly given the slippery slope of ideas like this, I’m not sure the NRA had any choice but to feel like this. Now whether they actually do anything about it is another story. It’s probably just lip service.
MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 364d
The NRA is a lobby group for the gun industry, and maximizing revenue through gun sales.
This is a fucking golden moment for the NRA to get a flood of support (money spent on firearms) from the left.
They can use the identical rhetoric about the government being jackbooted thugs, but this time they'd be accurate instead of hyperbolic.
Corngood@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 363d
Next mental illness: empathy
twice_hatch@midwest.social · 21 pts · 363d
Big talk. They endorsed Trump in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Elections
I'll believe it when I see it
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 363d
2A for all. If they've got guns, we should, too
IzzyScissor@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 363d
Not surprising. In a civil war, the only one who wins is the person selling the guns.
HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au · 16 pts · 363d
I thought the NRA went bankrupt?
Saprophyte@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 363d
Impossible. I sent thoughts and prayers.
SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social · 4 pts · 363d
My thoughts and prayers were for them to go bankrupt.
Lucky_777@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 364d
They have to get ahead of this. Because once it starts with trans, it'll move to another group with a bigger base. Guns gotta keep flowing for the NRA.
pc486@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 364d
I'm positive the NRA supports the transgender ban. In their past they supported the Mulford Act when the Black Panthers were copwatching.
My bet is they'll say second amendment today to save face and instead push for any changes to be only related to diagnosed mental illness. Then they'll be silent when the transgender community is thrown into that category during a second legislative pass.
bigfondue@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 364d
pc486@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 363d
Those tacticool loonies would support a transgender ban and the NRA supports red flag laws. Pass a red flag law and then let congress mark transgender people as red flagged. I'm sure the NRA won't loose a single tacticool loonie's membership with such an action.
hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 363d
Honestly, knowing the dire straights the NRA has been in the past 10 years or so, it wouldn't be a bad time to try and rebrand. Right wingers aren't nearly as big fans of them anymore after they've rolled over on basically every gun rights case that's come up, so I'm kinda hoping this is an actual attempt at doing something.
pc486@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 363d
Gosh, I hope you're correct. I would love to be wrong in my prediction.
hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 363d
I'm certainly not holding my breath, but it wouldn't be a bad hail-Mary play for them
RinseChessBacked@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 364d
As a gun owner and enthusiast, I encourage all Americans to exercise their rights. Also, NRA can go to hell. They're just a huge money grab. I'm a GOA member myself.
potato_wallrus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 363d
How is the GOA? I've been looking at 2A groups, but I don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of maga chuds
HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com · 10 pts · 363d
Whoa whoa whoa second amendment folks! Right? RIGHT?!
AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 363d
I mean on the one hand, you shouldn't get brownie points for just doing the most basic.
On the other, thank fuck they're actually saying something. I would guess they are doing this bc they know this means if trans people can't buy guns, that's a loss in profits, but that's about the only thing that's going to get the wealthy to take any notice. (This is also why corporations should never have been considered people, but that's a topic for a different day).
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 363d
It's also a really slippery slope when the justice department can blanket declare entire swaths of people mentally ill. Soon, anyone who doesn't vote would be banned from owning firearms due to their "Trump Derangement Syndrome" being classified as mental illness.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Liberals need to consider arming themselves while they still can. Guns have caused a lot of harm, but right now 90% of the guns are owned by the fascists. I'm hoping I never need guns, but I know I don't want to find out I need them after I can't get them.
AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 362d
"Oh you mean you've never had a brain worm? That alone is enough reason to put you in a straight jacket."
Sludgehammer@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 364d
I would not have called that one.
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 6 pts · 364d
Oppose as in, the same level of action against a ban that they have done for other restrictions in the past? Doubt.
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 363d
Yeah, are they lobbying Congress to oppose it? Will their NRA rating decrease if they support the ban? Are they threatening to fund primary challengers? Will there be a trans speaker at the next convention saying "from my cold dead hands"?
There's a difference between a strongly worded letter responding to an immediate question of the day and actual action.
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 363d
so far the news is only that the executive branch is pursuing this, and this news is only a few days old. This is their first response to the matter.
No organization can move quickly enough to already be doing the things you suggest at this point. This is the make a statement of intent phase, which they have done.
Give it time, nothing happens immediately.
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 363d
Why? We've seen their anemic responses to minority gun issues before (Philando Castile). There's no reason to assume good faith from an organization that's been a thinly veiled Republican PAC for decades now.
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 363d
agreed, but at this stage expecting more than a statement is unreasonable. no organization could be in full go mode this early.
their actions to come will be telling.
Quokka@quokk.au · 3 pts · 363d
What’s the historical rate for their other responses to gun control attempts?
I suspect if they really wanted to, they could.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 363d
Are they merely saying it? Or, ard they actually saying it? Basically, is their money behind it? Or, is this just a publicity stunt?
Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 363d
If "trans lose their gun rights" becomes a headline then "all us citizens lose their gun rights" is on the next train and the NRA is almost utterly pointless. They can smell what's coming because they were on that side of the fence for far too long.
Carvex@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 363d
Don’t forget, on the firearm purchase application it asks if you currently or have ever smoked marijuana, which would exclude you from being allowed to purchase a weapon. I’d like to believe that question answered honestly would include almost every current firearm owner…so normal hypocrisy I suppose.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 363d
Should ask if you drink alcohol.
dhork@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 363d
It's currently 1:10 AM in Moscow. Wait a few hours until they get new direction from Management ....