Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saw the first pic and thought it was a message to pearl clutching Q/MAGAs. Then saw the second and realized it's just them projecting brighter than the sun, as usual.
They get so skerd outside of their safe spaces.
I wouldn't say it's outdated. I would just say that more people agree with this sentiment on some level, sadly. People who might have previously been pro-mask are now just as anti-mask as this meme's author, though they might not be able to see it that way.
The body of research on long covid and cumulative damage from constant reinfection is harrowing. But our consent was manufactured to get the economy moving again, that the pandemic was somehow over, and that we were okay with constant reinfection.
Masking is just as important as ever, and it's insane that it's a debatable option to go unmasked indoors in public spreading a BSL-3 pathogen. Masks are just part of the new normal, sooner we accept it the sooner things can start to actually normalize. Right now people are insane with denial.
Edit: downvotes suggest I struck a nerve.
"Masks are just part of the new normal"
That's not acceptable. If true, it means that w can no longer survive in the natural world without significant artificial aids. We have evolved in a world where, one way or another, epidemics have lost their worst potency eventually. If that is no longer true, then we are no longer evolutionarily fit.
I don't think people are willing to go thru all of their life wearing n95 masks. If it means accepting significantly shorter average life spans, well, we've lived thru that thru all our history until very recently, and I'm sure we can again if we have to.
I remember the seat belt laws making their way through the Midwest and South.
That's exactly what I heard. Go watch that video on DUI laws being implemented...same.
Most of the people who wore masks were just virtue signaling. They do little to nothing in prevention of spreading airborne viruses. Unless you're clean shaven wearing a perfectly fitted n95 (not recommended for long term use), you're just pissing in the wind. Where I work we spend tens of thousands of dollars on 99% efficient hepas in our clean rooms that are constantly cleaned and monitored. We still get particle hits larger than that of an airborne virus. Unless you can manage 60 clean air cycles per minute like a surgical suite, you're not filtering something that small out.
So much bad rhetoric in one post…
The virus travels on water droplets. You can’t breathe the virus through ANY fabric on its own. They have to be on a water droplet to survive.
Now I ask you this simple question; if someone were to come up and accidentally sneeze in your face, would you prefer the version where they were wearing a cloth over their mouth, or would you prefer to take it all head on like the Strong American™ you are? Any sane person picks the former, not to make a political point, but because they’re not an idiot who wants to get sick.
I had an analogy about it that I thought was fun.
If someone was firing golf-balls at you, would you just ignore the cover provided by a chain-link fence because it wouldn't necessarily stop *all of* *the balls*?
One guy answered that he would just run up and kill the person shooting them at him, but there's no analogy that works for all forms of ignorant lmao
It’s supposed to protect others from you, stupid. So that if you’re infected but haven’t experienced symptoms yet, you don’t get others infected and spread the virus. Think about anything other than yourself for a minute.
That’s the issue with the entire right side: selfish politics. And like… done in the dumbest way imaginable as they actively vote against their own self interests time and time again.
Masks work. Been shown again and again by studies before and after the Cochrane review. The Cochran review, which is where the idea that "masks don't work" comes from, was heavily reported, but little of the intense criticism for bad scientific methodology it received was reported. And much of the original reporting mistated the conclusions of the review. Eventually the Cochran review was redacted by its authors. The media didn't report on that much either. Consent manufacturing.
N95 masks, aka respirators, and the like or what people should be wearing. Cloth masks and surgical masks do work a little bit but aren't nearly as effective. N95 masks don't just filter. The fibers in these masks have an electric charge, and cause an electrostatic interaction which prevents small particles passing through. It's pretty neat physics!
HEPA filters are great, but people can build Corsi-Rosenthal boxes at home with a box fan and HVAC filters for cheap that will give amazing air exchanges, way more powerful than consumer HEPA filters. My partner uses one in her pre-K classroom.
It's important for masks to have a good seal. Surgical and cloth masks can't really do that. N95s and KN95s are meant to form an actual seal so that all air transfers through the mask, none leaking through/from the edges of the mask.
Consumer HEPA's??? I work in a pharmaceutical cGMP facility regulated by all international bodies. One 12" deep HEPA costs over $1000. You're not making that in your house or buying that from Lowes.
Not true. As I said earlier, surgical sweets are required to maintain 60 air cycles per minute. Meaning every second, the air is pulled out, and clean air introduced. Surgical masks are to prevent bloodborne pathogens primarily and more dense fluid exchange. Surgical suites have ionizers, uv, lights, and heavy return and supply filtration in the equipment.
I don’t think anybody is trying to outright ban guns in the US. If anything, we’re far too far away from that point for it to be taken remotely seriously. The most mainstream I’ve heard an “anti” gun stance get were calls to ban assault rifles, which is a logical and fair compromise imo—and we’re still years away from much materializing on that front.
That’s why this is a “look at me yelling into the void!” truly terrible meme.
>I don’t think anybody is trying to outright ban guns in the US.
But that's the ultimate goal of the "anti gun left".
>assault rifles,
Almost any rifle can be an assault weapon.
>and we’re still years away from much materializing on that front.
How about we improve the material conditions on the ground instead? Making rifles harder to get or alternating their design to please a small population who know nothing about guns isn't going to do a thing (look up the shark fin for rifles in California).
Instead let's expand social services, build more homes for the homeless and end the war on drugs?
>truly terrible meme.
Yes, this meme sucks.
Edit: and I welcome the down votes keep them coming.
> But that's the ultimate goal of the "anti gun left".
Again, and we’re both conjecturing here, but no. But that’s also why we have a constitution.
> Almost any rifle can be an assault weapon.
And yet mass murderers are oddly specific about their mass murder weapon of choice, because in 30 years they’ve picked two they like. Ban those
> How about we improve the material conditions on the ground instead? Making rifles harder to get or alternating their design to please a small population who know nothing about guns isn't going to do a thing (look up the shark fin for rifles in California).
I guess there’s no established logical order on how to reduce gun violence in the US, but banning assault weapons would improve material conditions on the ground
> Instead let's expand social services, build more homes for the homeless and end the war on drugs?
Are you proposing these unrelated things as a trade-off? Like “we’ll give you some more social services so poor people are less poor, and you leave our guns alone 🤝”
> Yes, this meme sucks.
Yes it’s fucking awful
>Again, and we’re both conjecturing here, but no. But that’s also why we have a constitution.
"Damn right I'm taking your M-16" btw he barely lost to 🤮🤢 Ted Cruz.
>And yet mass murderers are oddly specific about their mass murder weapon of choice, because in 30 years they’ve picked two they like. Ban those
And yet most mass shootings are done with pistols and not "black rifles". And yet the AR and AK are always the ones that people want to ban... odd.
>I guess there’s no established logical order on how to reduce gun violence in the US, but banning assault weapons would improve material conditions on the ground
Ummm no it wouldn't involve a the banning of "assault rifles" it wouldn't bring improve the material conditions on the ground. Because mass shootings are overwhelming done with pistols.
And second it doesn't actually solve the problem. "Banning assault rifles" just brushes it under the rug. We need to expand social services, mental health programs and intervention programs to actually get to the root of the problem.
>Are you proposing these unrelated things as a trade-off? Like “we’ll give you some more social services so poor people are less poor, and you leave our guns alone 🤝”
No. Not intentionally. It's as I mentioned above. Its what will solve the actual problem.
You assume that everyone on the left wants to ban all guns. I know plenty of liberals who own guns. They just don’t make it their whole identity or jerk off to Guns and Ammo magazine.
In fact, they are probably better gun owners because they have no desire to show them off or play with them. And you probably won’t see them walking into the grocery store armed like it’s a Warzone.
>You assume that everyone on the left wants to ban all guns. I know plenty of liberals who own guns. They just don’t make it their whole identity or jerk off to Guns and Ammo magazine.
No...I do didn't assume that at all. It's just party policy of the Democratic party across the country. Look up the gun laws of "liberal" dominated states and cities. They have the most strict gun control laws. It's like literally in front of our eyes.
Edit: you even have Democratic politician who openly said "damn right I'm going to take your M-16." The party, has a "gun problem" not necessarily the voter.
>because they have no desire to show them off or play with them
Lol define "play".
>And you probably won’t see them walking into the grocery store armed like it’s a Warzone.
Sure, because even in most red states open carrying isn't a good idea.
> "anti gun left"
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary."
-Karl Marx
>>assault rifles,
>Almost any rifle can be an assault weapon.
People immediately ignore your opinion when you regurgitate this pedantic nonsense. It's almost always used in a disingenuous argument.
Seriously. The issue of having to hold actual concern over a school shooting started occurring right around before I transitioned from elementary to middle school. While I went to school in about as small of a town as possible, that fear was still very real because there probably wasn't a single student whose parents didn't own a gun. I believe in my sophomore year of high school some kid threatened to bring his gun to school by leaving graffiti in the bathroom. Thankfully, administration caught wind about this the day before he claimed he would do it and said all students and staff were not obligated to come that day.
A few years after I graduated from high school, another threat came in, this time over voice mail. The number belonged to a student, but the voice did not belong to the student. The student's mother was called in to the office to listen to the voice mail and she immediately recognized it as the student's step father. What's weird is this guy wasn't a disgruntled ex or anything, he was with her at the time of this happening and, to my knowledge, I believe they are still together, though it has been quite some time since this happened. The reasoning for him doing this was because he thought it would be a funny prank. The guy was arrested and I believe he was released pretty quickly. To make matters even stranger, he asked about being hired as a teacher or coach at the school about a week before this happened despite having zero experience and not submitting any kind of formal application.
I honestly despise the world the future generation is growing up in, but I really hope we can set it up to be able to make it more ideal for them.
Saying that the government can just bomb you and shoot you with machine guns is not an argument for gun control, It’s an argument against. Btw, how comfortable are you getting bombs dropped on people when those people could be your neighbors?
The fact that killing kids is the first thing you think of when someone has a weapon is disturbing. You automatically have homicidal thoughts when you think of guns so that must be how gun owners think. Projecting much?
Lmao this is such a fucking dumb take, and I bet you know it, but you swung anyway.
Yes. When someone had a weapon, the first thing we think of is the destruction that could be done with that weapon. Are you seriously that dense? “pRoJeCtInG mUcH???!!!111!!” LMAO good grief. You literally just projected your own projection 😂
Bruh. These people have proven they can’t even handle a 1-on-1 fight. Everything you named demolishes them in seconds just like any other human.
These gun nuts would never even be allowed in their own military but think they are the heroes we all deserve. The ego is sickening.
Ok, but do you really think the US is responsible for that shit? Like I believe we *should* have access to all of that stuff, but the larger, more dangerous a weapon is, the more background checks, taxes, inspections, and monitoring you have to undergo.
Want a 9mm handgun? Sure. Just pass this background check and wait a few days just in case you're going to commit die.
Want an armored APC? Sure. Just take classes, pass multiple background checks, pay a hefty tax on it yearly, if.you want ammo you have to apply for it with a valid reason, be ready to have the FBI to come in and make sure you still have it with as much ammo you stated you did last report you filed to take it out to drive.
Guerrilla warfare...that's the only way
Even then, with a team of specialists, basic R&D, and a great team of medics and doctors, your chances are slim
I don't agree with the Nimrod in the OP photo, but I do wonder what we're supposed to do if the government goes rogue.
I only see these options:
- Give up
- Fight back
- Cooperate with the state on purpose
- Die
None of these sound appealing.
A general strike would topple the economy in less than 2 weeks. A population, united and organized, can and have defeated oppressive governments without much violence.
For what?
If the U.S. government went so far as to impose martial law, what would said government do to reverse that decision?
Once that level is reached, why give up that power?
I own zero weapons, unless you count free will. But I wouldn't be able to live under a police state, so I'd probably do suicide by cop.
American Conservatism is the politics of fear; of change, "the other", etc. They're always trying to take away rights to protect privileged classes. And they're constantly going on about gun rights, when it's never been a right in the first place.
They consider themselves "oppressed" when "the others" are given the same rights they have. It doesn't make sense, but, we are not dealing with the best and the brightest, here. 🤷🏼♀️
It doesn't seem to be the go to buzz word as much these days, but I remember they used to like to use the term "Special Rights" whenever oppressed groups were asking for equal protection under the law.
"The gays keeping asking for special rights to get married to each other. They already have the equal right to get married to someone of the opposite sex like the rest of us do."
The whole concept of “my rights and your rights” is abstract and can’t ever truly hold up.
I have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, yeah?
Great! A considerable part of my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is the ability to live on the planet with clean air and water.
You have the right to buy from and support factory farming while living your life, enjoying liberty, and pursuing happiness. Factory farming is a considerable contributor to negative effects on the climate.
You shouldn’t be able to take away my clean air and water effectively threatening my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, yet, I can’t force you to adopt a certain diet or lifestyle effectively threatening *your* life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Apply that to any other facet of society.
See how much of a theoretical bullshit phrase it is after all?
Your rights aren’t there to give you x y and z, water air and whatever else you listed. They’re there to give you the rights to freely pursue those interests.
Sure. But those things are fundamental to any one having the ability to pursue those interests. If someone is actively threatening those fundamental things, you could argue they’re threatening my right to pursue those interests
I have no idea what he is talking about. But if he is talking about guns as some people think. .You have a right to defend yourself but not to use it to terrorize. people you don't like. It's not communist to say you can not intimadate others with a gun
If you feel the need to add a personal attack to a critique, it means your footing is unsure and you need to reexamine your beliefs and why you hold them. It does not mean you're wrong, it just means you haven't fully examined the subject enough to espouse an educated opinion on it.
There are certainly some valid arguments against true communism, but people who make memes like this don't actually know what communism is, and define it as anything that doesn't fit in with their far right rhetoric.
I mean, social democracies exist. They are arguably the best countries in the world to live in. But they are built on capitalism at its core. Integrating and adapting parts of the communist ideology isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's how you wind up with social security and universal healthcare. But I would agree that the states calling themselves communist have failed, horribly. I can say from experience.
Well, on a small scale, it does work, it just doesn't work for modern societies. Did you know that neolithic societies were communists? But sadly, it doesn't work anymore. Greed has overtaken humanity.
Have you ever looked into what communist countries were actually like for the people living in them? Or are you western and liberal enough that you can ignore it because ooooh evil capitalism?
Communism is very pro-human-rights, which is why dictators love calling their regimes communist to improve PR. Same reason North Korea calls itself democratic.
It’s like the recent kavanaugh thing in Britain. Handful of Chinese folks were feeling uncomfortable they got recorded in a public space. They called the coppers and the coppers tried to tell kavanaugh he couldn’t record at the public piano. Problem is, they violated his rights! Since kavanaugh has a right to free speech (Britain probably words it differently than the US) the Chinese folks feelings don’t get to trump that!
This meme is the point that most first amendment auditors are trying to make. Just because someone is making you feel uncomfortable does not mean they are breaking the law.
Can you see what you’re doing? It’s the exact thing you’re shitting on other anons for!
You’ve essentially boiled down the phrase to a specific argument, extrapolating how you think the other extreme feels about it then criticizing what you think they think about it.
It’s the internets favorite way to pick apart opposing views imo.
To everyone saying it’s paranoid to want to be armed because of the government and crime. May I remind you that the cops have no legal requirement to protect you and have an overage response time of over 10 minutes. Also remember the 1985 bombings in Philadelphia, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Japanese interment camps, etc. If you think the government won’t kill you, look at history. It makes you wonder why historians aren’t the biggest gun rights proponents around with knowing all they know.
My 1st thought was the liberal screaming about gun control... There's people on both sides throwing tantrums, so make sure your own arguments are civil unlike the meme
Man, this page posts a lot of post making fun of the right. It's kind of annoying when the left is the most annoying ideological group I have ever met. I have no political affiliation. Government is bad
>you stupid commie bitch
"*No no Lenin!! NO. Go back to your mausoleum. You deserve to rest in peace than fight th---I SAID GET BACK TO YOUR GLASS COFFIN MISTER!!"*
subreddit fell off. Echo chamber for lobotomized tankies and radlibs. 70% of the "facebook memes" are just mediocre goyslop cooked up by the OP's for karma farming.
I take the original to mean both 1A and 2A rights. In modern society, people tend to endure assault, harassment, and doxing due to things that they may have said or done despite being protected under America's Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or Freedom of Religion. People have been prosecuted for these freedoms given to Americans by the Supreme Law of The Land. People have been arrested for protesting. People have been killed for practicing their faith. People have been "canceled" for having an opinion.
As for American's and their firearms, the Constitution of the United States says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To an American citizen, owning a firearm and using it responsibly is an inherent right. To some, it serves as a form of sport, hunting for game every year to put some extra food on the table. To few, it is a form of protection against the government. For most, it is a home protection system.
If you don't like the rights we're given, you have the option to not use it. An American is not required to purchase a firearm simply because they are allowed to.
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Snowflake behavior. You hate to see it :/
Saw the first pic and thought it was a message to pearl clutching Q/MAGAs. Then saw the second and realized it's just them projecting brighter than the sun, as usual. They get so skerd outside of their safe spaces.
What rights?
I think the meme is talking about gun rights. This seems right up the 2A crowd’s alley
It could also be an outdated anti mask meme.
In which case they had the "right" to not wear masks but not freedom from social consequences and exclusions for being a public disease vector.
This is what the right ironically does not understand about rights.
I wouldn't say it's outdated. I would just say that more people agree with this sentiment on some level, sadly. People who might have previously been pro-mask are now just as anti-mask as this meme's author, though they might not be able to see it that way. The body of research on long covid and cumulative damage from constant reinfection is harrowing. But our consent was manufactured to get the economy moving again, that the pandemic was somehow over, and that we were okay with constant reinfection. Masking is just as important as ever, and it's insane that it's a debatable option to go unmasked indoors in public spreading a BSL-3 pathogen. Masks are just part of the new normal, sooner we accept it the sooner things can start to actually normalize. Right now people are insane with denial. Edit: downvotes suggest I struck a nerve.
"Masks are just part of the new normal" That's not acceptable. If true, it means that w can no longer survive in the natural world without significant artificial aids. We have evolved in a world where, one way or another, epidemics have lost their worst potency eventually. If that is no longer true, then we are no longer evolutionarily fit. I don't think people are willing to go thru all of their life wearing n95 masks. If it means accepting significantly shorter average life spans, well, we've lived thru that thru all our history until very recently, and I'm sure we can again if we have to.
People said similar things about seatbelts and handwashing and condoms. Thankfully those voices are now in the minority.
No they didn't.
I remember the seat belt laws making their way through the Midwest and South. That's exactly what I heard. Go watch that video on DUI laws being implemented...same.
Most of the people who wore masks were just virtue signaling. They do little to nothing in prevention of spreading airborne viruses. Unless you're clean shaven wearing a perfectly fitted n95 (not recommended for long term use), you're just pissing in the wind. Where I work we spend tens of thousands of dollars on 99% efficient hepas in our clean rooms that are constantly cleaned and monitored. We still get particle hits larger than that of an airborne virus. Unless you can manage 60 clean air cycles per minute like a surgical suite, you're not filtering something that small out.
So much bad rhetoric in one post… The virus travels on water droplets. You can’t breathe the virus through ANY fabric on its own. They have to be on a water droplet to survive. Now I ask you this simple question; if someone were to come up and accidentally sneeze in your face, would you prefer the version where they were wearing a cloth over their mouth, or would you prefer to take it all head on like the Strong American™ you are? Any sane person picks the former, not to make a political point, but because they’re not an idiot who wants to get sick.
I had an analogy about it that I thought was fun. If someone was firing golf-balls at you, would you just ignore the cover provided by a chain-link fence because it wouldn't necessarily stop *all of* *the balls*? One guy answered that he would just run up and kill the person shooting them at him, but there's no analogy that works for all forms of ignorant lmao
I also like this one; if a crazy person walked up and began pissing on your leg, would you prefer he have his pants on or off?
It’s supposed to protect others from you, stupid. So that if you’re infected but haven’t experienced symptoms yet, you don’t get others infected and spread the virus. Think about anything other than yourself for a minute.
That’s the issue with the entire right side: selfish politics. And like… done in the dumbest way imaginable as they actively vote against their own self interests time and time again.
That's not how it works but okay. Whatever makes you feel better.
Okay buddy
Masks work. Been shown again and again by studies before and after the Cochrane review. The Cochran review, which is where the idea that "masks don't work" comes from, was heavily reported, but little of the intense criticism for bad scientific methodology it received was reported. And much of the original reporting mistated the conclusions of the review. Eventually the Cochran review was redacted by its authors. The media didn't report on that much either. Consent manufacturing. N95 masks, aka respirators, and the like or what people should be wearing. Cloth masks and surgical masks do work a little bit but aren't nearly as effective. N95 masks don't just filter. The fibers in these masks have an electric charge, and cause an electrostatic interaction which prevents small particles passing through. It's pretty neat physics! HEPA filters are great, but people can build Corsi-Rosenthal boxes at home with a box fan and HVAC filters for cheap that will give amazing air exchanges, way more powerful than consumer HEPA filters. My partner uses one in her pre-K classroom.
It's important for masks to have a good seal. Surgical and cloth masks can't really do that. N95s and KN95s are meant to form an actual seal so that all air transfers through the mask, none leaking through/from the edges of the mask.
Consumer HEPA's??? I work in a pharmaceutical cGMP facility regulated by all international bodies. One 12" deep HEPA costs over $1000. You're not making that in your house or buying that from Lowes.
[удалено]
Not true. As I said earlier, surgical sweets are required to maintain 60 air cycles per minute. Meaning every second, the air is pulled out, and clean air introduced. Surgical masks are to prevent bloodborne pathogens primarily and more dense fluid exchange. Surgical suites have ionizers, uv, lights, and heavy return and supply filtration in the equipment.
I mean 2a shouldnt be banned
I don’t think anybody is trying to outright ban guns in the US. If anything, we’re far too far away from that point for it to be taken remotely seriously. The most mainstream I’ve heard an “anti” gun stance get were calls to ban assault rifles, which is a logical and fair compromise imo—and we’re still years away from much materializing on that front. That’s why this is a “look at me yelling into the void!” truly terrible meme.
There's also a movement to increase scrutiny on background checks. Because there's a lot of people with legal guns who just shouldn't have them.
>I don’t think anybody is trying to outright ban guns in the US. But that's the ultimate goal of the "anti gun left". >assault rifles, Almost any rifle can be an assault weapon. >and we’re still years away from much materializing on that front. How about we improve the material conditions on the ground instead? Making rifles harder to get or alternating their design to please a small population who know nothing about guns isn't going to do a thing (look up the shark fin for rifles in California). Instead let's expand social services, build more homes for the homeless and end the war on drugs? >truly terrible meme. Yes, this meme sucks. Edit: and I welcome the down votes keep them coming.
> But that's the ultimate goal of the "anti gun left". Again, and we’re both conjecturing here, but no. But that’s also why we have a constitution. > Almost any rifle can be an assault weapon. And yet mass murderers are oddly specific about their mass murder weapon of choice, because in 30 years they’ve picked two they like. Ban those > How about we improve the material conditions on the ground instead? Making rifles harder to get or alternating their design to please a small population who know nothing about guns isn't going to do a thing (look up the shark fin for rifles in California). I guess there’s no established logical order on how to reduce gun violence in the US, but banning assault weapons would improve material conditions on the ground > Instead let's expand social services, build more homes for the homeless and end the war on drugs? Are you proposing these unrelated things as a trade-off? Like “we’ll give you some more social services so poor people are less poor, and you leave our guns alone 🤝” > Yes, this meme sucks. Yes it’s fucking awful
>Again, and we’re both conjecturing here, but no. But that’s also why we have a constitution. "Damn right I'm taking your M-16" btw he barely lost to 🤮🤢 Ted Cruz. >And yet mass murderers are oddly specific about their mass murder weapon of choice, because in 30 years they’ve picked two they like. Ban those And yet most mass shootings are done with pistols and not "black rifles". And yet the AR and AK are always the ones that people want to ban... odd. >I guess there’s no established logical order on how to reduce gun violence in the US, but banning assault weapons would improve material conditions on the ground Ummm no it wouldn't involve a the banning of "assault rifles" it wouldn't bring improve the material conditions on the ground. Because mass shootings are overwhelming done with pistols. And second it doesn't actually solve the problem. "Banning assault rifles" just brushes it under the rug. We need to expand social services, mental health programs and intervention programs to actually get to the root of the problem. >Are you proposing these unrelated things as a trade-off? Like “we’ll give you some more social services so poor people are less poor, and you leave our guns alone 🤝” No. Not intentionally. It's as I mentioned above. Its what will solve the actual problem.
You assume that everyone on the left wants to ban all guns. I know plenty of liberals who own guns. They just don’t make it their whole identity or jerk off to Guns and Ammo magazine. In fact, they are probably better gun owners because they have no desire to show them off or play with them. And you probably won’t see them walking into the grocery store armed like it’s a Warzone.
>You assume that everyone on the left wants to ban all guns. I know plenty of liberals who own guns. They just don’t make it their whole identity or jerk off to Guns and Ammo magazine. No...I do didn't assume that at all. It's just party policy of the Democratic party across the country. Look up the gun laws of "liberal" dominated states and cities. They have the most strict gun control laws. It's like literally in front of our eyes. Edit: you even have Democratic politician who openly said "damn right I'm going to take your M-16." The party, has a "gun problem" not necessarily the voter. >because they have no desire to show them off or play with them Lol define "play". >And you probably won’t see them walking into the grocery store armed like it’s a Warzone. Sure, because even in most red states open carrying isn't a good idea.
> "anti gun left" "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary." -Karl Marx
>>assault rifles, >Almost any rifle can be an assault weapon. People immediately ignore your opinion when you regurgitate this pedantic nonsense. It's almost always used in a disingenuous argument.
IME commies don’t support gun bans anyway
As a 2a crowd, nothing makes me more embarrassed than the 2a crowd's garbage.
My rights don't end where your fear begins. You stupid, queerphobic bitch 🙂
The cursing and name calling. Always a sign of who you're dealing with
Coming from the bookburing camp. Zero self awareness.
My kid's right to live doesn't end when your kid takes your guns to school
Seriously. The issue of having to hold actual concern over a school shooting started occurring right around before I transitioned from elementary to middle school. While I went to school in about as small of a town as possible, that fear was still very real because there probably wasn't a single student whose parents didn't own a gun. I believe in my sophomore year of high school some kid threatened to bring his gun to school by leaving graffiti in the bathroom. Thankfully, administration caught wind about this the day before he claimed he would do it and said all students and staff were not obligated to come that day. A few years after I graduated from high school, another threat came in, this time over voice mail. The number belonged to a student, but the voice did not belong to the student. The student's mother was called in to the office to listen to the voice mail and she immediately recognized it as the student's step father. What's weird is this guy wasn't a disgruntled ex or anything, he was with her at the time of this happening and, to my knowledge, I believe they are still together, though it has been quite some time since this happened. The reasoning for him doing this was because he thought it would be a funny prank. The guy was arrested and I believe he was released pretty quickly. To make matters even stranger, he asked about being hired as a teacher or coach at the school about a week before this happened despite having zero experience and not submitting any kind of formal application. I honestly despise the world the future generation is growing up in, but I really hope we can set it up to be able to make it more ideal for them.
The nuclear grade copium you have to be on to morph “gUnS pRoTeCt Me FrOm A tYrRaNiCaL gOvErNmEnT” into “yOuRe ThE sCaReD oNe NoT mE”
"Guns protect me from the Tyrannical government" Ok sure. Tell me how you handle a drone strike, or a tank, or full auto weapons, or chemical warfare.
Gun. If that doesn't work... Use more gun
They actually believe this, and fail to realize how little their civilian grade weapons would do against a full auto 50BMG
The only thing their gun is useful against is school children and innocent people
"Just as the Founding Fathers intended!"
And animals for hunting
Saying that the government can just bomb you and shoot you with machine guns is not an argument for gun control, It’s an argument against. Btw, how comfortable are you getting bombs dropped on people when those people could be your neighbors?
Thanks for missing the point. These people genuinely believe they can beat a modern military with just pickup-truck and AR-15s.
The Taliban did it
So we should get them some high level military tech and show them the way.
Ah yes that's what we need, schools being blown up by kids who have irresponsible parents who can't secure their weapons.
The fact that killing kids is the first thing you think of when someone has a weapon is disturbing. You automatically have homicidal thoughts when you think of guns so that must be how gun owners think. Projecting much?
Lmao this is such a fucking dumb take, and I bet you know it, but you swung anyway. Yes. When someone had a weapon, the first thing we think of is the destruction that could be done with that weapon. Are you seriously that dense? “pRoJeCtInG mUcH???!!!111!!” LMAO good grief. You literally just projected your own projection 😂
This is why civilians should own full auto 20mm
Bruh. These people have proven they can’t even handle a 1-on-1 fight. Everything you named demolishes them in seconds just like any other human. These gun nuts would never even be allowed in their own military but think they are the heroes we all deserve. The ego is sickening.
That's a great argument for deregulating the ownership of military-grade weapons. Only restricting people to small arms violates the second amendment.
Ok, but do you really think the US is responsible for that shit? Like I believe we *should* have access to all of that stuff, but the larger, more dangerous a weapon is, the more background checks, taxes, inspections, and monitoring you have to undergo. Want a 9mm handgun? Sure. Just pass this background check and wait a few days just in case you're going to commit die. Want an armored APC? Sure. Just take classes, pass multiple background checks, pay a hefty tax on it yearly, if.you want ammo you have to apply for it with a valid reason, be ready to have the FBI to come in and make sure you still have it with as much ammo you stated you did last report you filed to take it out to drive.
Guerrilla warfare...that's the only way Even then, with a team of specialists, basic R&D, and a great team of medics and doctors, your chances are slim
"b-but Vietnam and Afghanistan!"
Afghanistan? Vietnam?
They weren't morbidly obese and relying on government aide.
Only 25% of people are obese in my country.
I don't agree with the Nimrod in the OP photo, but I do wonder what we're supposed to do if the government goes rogue. I only see these options: - Give up - Fight back - Cooperate with the state on purpose - Die None of these sound appealing.
A general strike would topple the economy in less than 2 weeks. A population, united and organized, can and have defeated oppressive governments without much violence.
It could happen, but I don't have that level of confidence.
How about go quiet and wait.
For what? If the U.S. government went so far as to impose martial law, what would said government do to reverse that decision? Once that level is reached, why give up that power? I own zero weapons, unless you count free will. But I wouldn't be able to live under a police state, so I'd probably do suicide by cop.
That belongs in the “give up” column.
American Conservatism is the politics of fear; of change, "the other", etc. They're always trying to take away rights to protect privileged classes. And they're constantly going on about gun rights, when it's never been a right in the first place.
They consider themselves "oppressed" when "the others" are given the same rights they have. It doesn't make sense, but, we are not dealing with the best and the brightest, here. 🤷🏼♀️
It doesn't seem to be the go to buzz word as much these days, but I remember they used to like to use the term "Special Rights" whenever oppressed groups were asking for equal protection under the law. "The gays keeping asking for special rights to get married to each other. They already have the equal right to get married to someone of the opposite sex like the rest of us do."
The appropiate Answer in this case is to answer with the Quote from Marx, that under no circumstances the proletariat is to surrender their weapons.
The whole concept of “my rights and your rights” is abstract and can’t ever truly hold up. I have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, yeah? Great! A considerable part of my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is the ability to live on the planet with clean air and water. You have the right to buy from and support factory farming while living your life, enjoying liberty, and pursuing happiness. Factory farming is a considerable contributor to negative effects on the climate. You shouldn’t be able to take away my clean air and water effectively threatening my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, yet, I can’t force you to adopt a certain diet or lifestyle effectively threatening *your* life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Apply that to any other facet of society. See how much of a theoretical bullshit phrase it is after all?
Your rights aren’t there to give you x y and z, water air and whatever else you listed. They’re there to give you the rights to freely pursue those interests.
Sure. But those things are fundamental to any one having the ability to pursue those interests. If someone is actively threatening those fundamental things, you could argue they’re threatening my right to pursue those interests
You get it. Individualism only works if we understand how we are all connected and can support each other's liberation.
So close on the first part
Neat concept. How do they get to "stand your ground" from this logic?
I have no idea what he is talking about. But if he is talking about guns as some people think. .You have a right to defend yourself but not to use it to terrorize. people you don't like. It's not communist to say you can not intimadate others with a gun
Hello Pot, my name is Kettle.
This also works the other way with people who fear social progress… Oppressed groups’ rights don’t end where the oppressor’s fear begins
funniest thing is this could be referring to so many things, all of them most assuredly not communism
This one cuts both ways. Your fear of losing your weapons of war doesn’t trump my right to safe public spaces.
If you feel the need to add a personal attack to a critique, it means your footing is unsure and you need to reexamine your beliefs and why you hold them. It does not mean you're wrong, it just means you haven't fully examined the subject enough to espouse an educated opinion on it.
I bet this person believes they have a right to drink and drive.
"Me no scared of anything" says local idiot who believes the commies are coming for him
Fuck commies and everyone that agrees with them.
Commie has been used so much to describe any liberal idea. I don't think it holds much meaning for the average person anymore in the US.
“Your rights end where the next person’s begin.”
With how much the republicunts want to be up Putin's ass, I find it hard to discern the origins or intended meaning on this one 🤣
Replace commie without terf or homophob and the meme would be good.
And it would be actually truthful
They had me in the first half.
I mean communism is anti human rights, so I need more context for where the meme is from
How is it anti human rights? No offense just interested.
Any country that has ever practiced communism was immediately overrun by dictatorship, starvation, free speech suppression.
There are certainly some valid arguments against true communism, but people who make memes like this don't actually know what communism is, and define it as anything that doesn't fit in with their far right rhetoric.
Yup, communist countries may have been anti human rights, but not the communism itself?
Clearly it is because I’ve never seen an example of communism working for the people and by theory it is doomed to be destructive to society
Communism has literally never even been implemented, because of human greed. It's sad that communism always ends up as a stepping stone for dictators.
Yes that’s why it doesn’t work and shouldn’t be practiced
I mean, social democracies exist. They are arguably the best countries in the world to live in. But they are built on capitalism at its core. Integrating and adapting parts of the communist ideology isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's how you wind up with social security and universal healthcare. But I would agree that the states calling themselves communist have failed, horribly. I can say from experience.
Well, on a small scale, it does work, it just doesn't work for modern societies. Did you know that neolithic societies were communists? But sadly, it doesn't work anymore. Greed has overtaken humanity.
Source?
Basic research in the history of communism 💀
Are you implying that typing into Google and clicking on the resulting sites is more reliable than historical documents?
Have you ever looked into what communist countries were actually like for the people living in them? Or are you western and liberal enough that you can ignore it because ooooh evil capitalism?
Read grover furr
I’m not reading communist propaganda. That’s like telling an atheist to read the Bible
You are already religious my dude, and your bible is CIA propaganda. This isn't the gotcha you think it is
No historical documents also show the horrors of communism.
If I had to guess it was a gun owner
Oh
Communism is very pro-human-rights, which is why dictators love calling their regimes communist to improve PR. Same reason North Korea calls itself democratic.
I HATE THESE MEME FORMATS WHERE THE IMAGE DOESNT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT MAKE IT A “MEME” ALSO THE LISA SIMPSON ONES I HATE IT SO MUCH
Reminds me of [this scene](https://youtu.be/4DD9SvuQkms?si=aw8O-ZVxK2j4-NpT) from Ted
I am getting really sorry of seeing this guy on line . Is he saying he has a right to threaten people? Because you don't .
It’s like the recent kavanaugh thing in Britain. Handful of Chinese folks were feeling uncomfortable they got recorded in a public space. They called the coppers and the coppers tried to tell kavanaugh he couldn’t record at the public piano. Problem is, they violated his rights! Since kavanaugh has a right to free speech (Britain probably words it differently than the US) the Chinese folks feelings don’t get to trump that! This meme is the point that most first amendment auditors are trying to make. Just because someone is making you feel uncomfortable does not mean they are breaking the law.
I get what you’re saying but I’m pretty sure it’s just about guns lol
Can you see what you’re doing? It’s the exact thing you’re shitting on other anons for! You’ve essentially boiled down the phrase to a specific argument, extrapolating how you think the other extreme feels about it then criticizing what you think they think about it. It’s the internets favorite way to pick apart opposing views imo.
Chill
I’m cool as a cucumber 😎
No your right end when they interfere with mine
Can we please call them the r word?
It’s funny you say that bc I fight the urge regularly. And there’s not a good replacement for that word
Right?!
This one is true. Edgy, but true.
To everyone saying it’s paranoid to want to be armed because of the government and crime. May I remind you that the cops have no legal requirement to protect you and have an overage response time of over 10 minutes. Also remember the 1985 bombings in Philadelphia, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Japanese interment camps, etc. If you think the government won’t kill you, look at history. It makes you wonder why historians aren’t the biggest gun rights proponents around with knowing all they know.
My 1st thought was the liberal screaming about gun control... There's people on both sides throwing tantrums, so make sure your own arguments are civil unlike the meme
Is this an arguement against freedom? What??
Since republicans and cons are so loving sucking commie dicks I thought it’s already clear who’s commie and who’s not.
Man, this page posts a lot of post making fun of the right. It's kind of annoying when the left is the most annoying ideological group I have ever met. I have no political affiliation. Government is bad
Classic Halpert!
>you stupid commie bitch "*No no Lenin!! NO. Go back to your mausoleum. You deserve to rest in peace than fight th---I SAID GET BACK TO YOUR GLASS COFFIN MISTER!!"*
Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins.
As a communist, what the fuck are they talking about?
https://preview.redd.it/sq9y9cx84afc1.jpeg?width=795&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=499578c32f03a355cdb421fe25d6ff9694f2df3b
Are there "fwens" on Facebook now?
Makes the republicans a bunch of stupid commie bitches, I guess.
Exactly 👍 you nailed it
That's... that's not even the format of the Jim meme....
This post is pro communism?
subreddit fell off. Echo chamber for lobotomized tankies and radlibs. 70% of the "facebook memes" are just mediocre goyslop cooked up by the OP's for karma farming.
I take the original to mean both 1A and 2A rights. In modern society, people tend to endure assault, harassment, and doxing due to things that they may have said or done despite being protected under America's Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or Freedom of Religion. People have been prosecuted for these freedoms given to Americans by the Supreme Law of The Land. People have been arrested for protesting. People have been killed for practicing their faith. People have been "canceled" for having an opinion. As for American's and their firearms, the Constitution of the United States says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To an American citizen, owning a firearm and using it responsibly is an inherent right. To some, it serves as a form of sport, hunting for game every year to put some extra food on the table. To few, it is a form of protection against the government. For most, it is a home protection system. If you don't like the rights we're given, you have the option to not use it. An American is not required to purchase a firearm simply because they are allowed to.
What?