this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
607 points (98.1% liked)

Political Memes

10661 readers
2465 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Guns McGee, who has a bed made of 10,000 AK-47s with 20 more hidden underneath it, is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.

The average American owns roughly 1.5 guns, with 40-50% of all households owning at least one gun. Of those households, those who own 2 or more guns account for about 89% of all guns in the US. (Fucking absurd)

Too bad the half of Americans with too many guns and not enough common sense are the ones who love fascism. Of course, if they had more common sense, they'd probably have less guns. A real catch-22 there...

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

Must downvote out of principal for incorrect use of the "cat looks inside" meme in a meme-themed community.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Gun ownership is disparate. While the mean is 1.2 guns per American the median is 0. gun owners tend to own many guns. 68% of Americans don’t own a gun at all per pew research, and about 20% of American gun owners own 65-70% of all guns.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 hours ago

also the "it's so i can overthrow the government" crowd was mostly (though not universally) talking about a dangerous persona like a black woman, not their godking pedophile. the people with guns who would challenge this are maybe 2% of the population and 0.5% of the firepower of the united states military forces.

learn from our mistake: never let a single faction develop a monopoly on access to violence

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago

Which is the same with any sport. Most people don't own a kayak, the people who do typically own multiple.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

Taking the guns out lowers their resell value!

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Don't be an American. Don't understand nuance in the country. Make broad, sweeping generalizations. Condemn all Americans.

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 29 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Am American. The only nuance they missed is that not every American has 100 AKs, but the ones that do have been screaming about 'protecting us from tyranny' for decades, then sided with the tyrants

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

But the "nothing happens" thing is entirely wrong. Minneapolis is a great example.

As well not understanding those saying that the loudest are fine with this fascism.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

But the “nothing happens” thing is entirely wrong. Minneapolis is a great example.

Not regarding this issue specifically, if anything what happened in MN goes AGAINST the notion that people have guns for armed rebellion.

We're talking about gun ownership for the purpose of violently overthrowing the government. That has not been demonstrated in MN.

Even Jan. 6, the shitshow that was, took a lot of planning and lead up to it. It didn't spontaneously come up overnight. That was a childish person's thought process of how to take over a government. The real work of trying to overthrow a government is longer and more methodical requiring so much pressure no the right points to make it collapse. All I'm seeing with these arguments really is they just want to see bloodshed which makes them no better than the generalizations they have of us.

[–] Pee_comes_from_the_balls@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Don't overeact, the US ain't France where half of the popular opinion is leftist, pro-strike and progressive and the other is outdated hateful conservatism. Instead, to most of the international population, the press corruption is very apparent since the popular opinion is very uniform and both of your politcal parties have times and times failed to recognize popular ideas and keep up the neo-liberalism, foreign interventionism and collaboration with lobbyists.

It's not an attack on individual americans, it's someone pointing out obvious systemic flaws that show in the way the citizens behave.

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Except this is used over and over again to generalize all USA citizens unironically.

[–] Pee_comes_from_the_balls@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (5 children)

Yes and it is on the US citizens to correct the narrative. Being angry at international opinions that are gaining traction is (and I use this word seriously) stupid. I also wonder what chinese citizens have to say about western generalization of their social identity, or afghan social indentity for that matter.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

It has always been a fantasy - pushed by gun manufacturers/sellers and believed by people who like to fantasize but are unwilling to uproot their lives to actually do it.

"Every government official" is outed as a child rapist? This kind of ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help one's argument.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 22 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

All the people with 100 ak47s joined ICE

[–] foggianism@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Turns out the lax gun laws were never meant to protect the citizens from the government, but to protect the government from the people, because easy militia. I know that ICE doesn't use their member's private guns, but fact is that most of their members are gun owners who eagerly applied to join ICE. They have been waiting for an opportunity to roam the streets and shoot people legally for ages. They have been conditioned for times like these.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That is accurate, it was supposed to replace a standing military.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Funny thing about RL™. Stockpiling weapons doesnt work like the movies

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 12 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Realistically only a small percentage of gun owners have that kind of weaponry.

I own guns and have a surplus of ammo. Probably wouldn't be enough to last more than 5 minutes in a fire fight. Which is not all that useful, especially when this country's military doctrine is to send as many bullets at the enemy as possible

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Maybe I can be a rich pedo one day!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

All of the gun owners will rise up, but they will stand on the side of tyranny.

[–] allidoislietomyself@lemmy.world 22 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

My best buddy is hard core 2A, not full right wing but he tows the line. He's literally been preparing for this exact scenario the past 15 years of his life. When I ask him about this he says "there's two sides to every story" then he spits out the same drivel they all spew. I told him the problem is that he and the rest of the 2A folks are just as afraid as the rest of us. They just don't want to admit it. Probably more afraid, because I haven't been building a small arsenal the past few years. All those guns, ammo, and fancy gear for what? It's fucking cosplay. A nerdy hobby. Like model trains but these 2A cunts all act like a tough guy that'll lay down the law if push comes to shove. Well we are being shoved. What now? At least take the guns to a protest so they can get some fresh air. Are these 2A folks afraid their guns might get dirty or something?

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

Train enthusiasts are more courageous cause if they get into a fight, they'd use large metal hand tools; 2A cosplayers would stand around talking about how big calibre weapon they got.

[–] Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone 34 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

I don't think it's a lack of willingness, but rather a lack of ability. Militant action requires a lot more than simply owning a gun.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago

It was a powerful lie to convince most gun owners that a "right to a well-regulated militia" meant being able to individually own a gun and never be trained to use it or organize.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 24 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Heretic!

If those gun toting hicks could read. They'd be very upset.

It's almost as if some form of militia, possibly a well regulated one, would also be necessary.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

"Well regulated" in the 1700s sense or "well regulated" in the "I think the government should have direct control over the militia that is supposed to violently fight the government" sense? Because imo one seems more viable than the other.

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

The second amendment was never intended to let the people overthrow the government. It was intended to serve instead of a standing army for the defense of the republic. Madison didn’t want military power centralized in the Federal government.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Not only did he not want it centralized, it was really uncommon and expensive to have a standing professional army at the time. The US was a new nation, and it was pretty poor. The idea they'd be able to have a federal professional military, at least one large enough that you don't need supplemental militias, would probably be laughed at.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 16 hours ago

Ehhh the federalist papers make it pretty clear that the second amendment and the aforementioned militias were for threats both foreign and domestic. Plus, considering the whole "starting a revolution against what was at the time 'their own' country" thing alone I think they recognized the possibility that they may need to do it again in the future.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" and all that.

-Thomas Jefferson

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What are the guns for then? I thought the second amendment was to fight the government? But now you're saying being armed is not enough?

Why even let people arm themselves, if all they do with the weapons is school shootings?

[–] Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 hours ago

I'm saying you need training and organizing in addition to the guns.

And to answer your last point, personally I'd be more in favour of citizen's weapons depots rather than privately owned guns for the murder/suicide reasons you mention.

[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

most people who care are also intelligent enough to realize that just opening fire is a losing move

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 6 points 19 hours ago

I imagine ICE would be less openly hostile when there would be a legitimate risk of getting shot by a vigilante.

Not saying it justifies having the amount of guns Americans have, but since they already have them they should be used for the reason they have them, to oppose a tyrannical government.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Been calling them on their bullshit for years with hypothetical situations. Now we have the real thing and I was fucking right.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] glimse@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago

Couldn't even replicate greentext correctly

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 29 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's because we're all educated enough to have seen similar uprisings fail unless we can gain more support. With times getting hard, Republican voters are starting to turn on their masters.

Also, last year there were votes (plural) where every single Republican voted to keep the Epstein Files sealed and every single Democrat voted to release them to the public. It's pretty wild to claim "every government official".

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 hours ago

Just having guns around wont ward off authoritarians like Homer Simpson's anti tiger rock. You actually need to exercise it to work.

[–] btsax@reddthat.com 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Saw a post on reddit a while back that gun owners wouldn't stand up for liberal causes because liberals keep trying to take their guns. Pretty thin argument but they're all cowards so whatever straw there is to grasp I guess they will firmly grasp

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 4 points 17 hours ago

That is what the authoritarians who actually want to take away their guns keep telling them!

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It may be a thin argument, but also... very accurate in practice. Politicians have been incredibly effective at sorting gun owners to just one side of the political spectrum.

[–] btsax@reddthat.com 3 points 15 hours ago

Yep, it's also convenient that most gun owners are in the "leopards would never eat MY face" side of that spectrum too

load more comments
view more: next ›