2088
Checkmate gun nuts (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 125 points 7 months ago

If the target audience could read, they d be very upset

[-] oo1@kbin.social 32 points 7 months ago

At least that'll keep them safe from being turned gay.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 26 points 7 months ago

I know a gay person who can read. It checks out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 111 points 7 months ago

Books don't gay people. Gay people gay people.

Did I do it right?

[-] negativenull@lemm.ee 48 points 7 months ago

The only way to stop a bad gay with a book, is a good gay with a book

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] trk@aussie.zone 42 points 7 months ago

Books didn't make me gay, it was those stupid sexy men with their penises.

[-] KreekyBonez@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

stupid sexy Flanders

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)
[-] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 58 points 7 months ago

I am proud to be pro gun and pro lgbtq+ ✊

[-] grue@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

"No, not like that" -- NRA, ATF, and FBI

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

If only the Black Panthers and Native Americans had been armed...

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 29 points 7 months ago

Black Panthers in California were famously armed, until Ronald Reagan signed the NRA-supported "Mulford Act" which prohibited them from carrying loaded weapons.

There were similar racial motivation behind the wave of legal prohibitions on concealment in the late 19th century. The thinking was that only "criminals" needed to hide the fact that they were armed; "honest" and "law abiding" people had no need to hide their weapons from other "honest" and "law abiding" citizens or the police. The supporters of these laws didn't make it a secret that their intentions were to disarm former slaves, who would certainly draw unwanted attention from racists if they attempted to carry openly as the law allowed.

Before the emancipation proclamation, the only restrictions on guns were based on criminal conviction and race, specifically, the disarmament of "Negroes" and "Indians".

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

What I've always thought would make an interesting alternative-history story would be if the Native Americans (or aboriginals in any place really) had something akin to a modern compound bow.

I've been shooting bows since I was six. I've also fired matchlock smoothbore guns. The matchlock is more powerful, but less accurate, slower to fire, noisy, it takes some setup before you can fire it the first time. Compound bows are crazy accurate in the right hands, and some can launch an arrow weighing 40-50 grams at 100 meters per second. Add a sharpened tip and it will penetrate a lot of armor, too.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)
[-] boborhrongar@lemmy.world 44 points 7 months ago

The same logic in both cases, the books aren't making people gay, they're providing people with knowledge that might make them realize they're gay. Guns don't kill people, they provide people a tool for people who want to kill people to kill people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] holycrap@lemm.ee 40 points 7 months ago

Remember, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gay is a good guy with a gay

[-] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 7 months ago

Hi I'm gay, where are the bad boys?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Hi Gay, I'm dad. I mean daddy 😈

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

"Books are just guns that fire gay rays" - some MAGA, probably.

[-] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 7 months ago

I saw this on Facebook. The dumb typical reply was "the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn" or something else insane

[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

Every accusation is a confession

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

The far-right accuses the LGBT+ community (and anyone who supports them) of being child predators because child predators are the last remaining group of people you can openly advocate violence against.

They want to say "lets kill all the gay people" but they need to maintain a shred of plausible deniability.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 31 points 7 months ago

“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Republicans are really going back in time for their policies.

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 35 points 7 months ago

You lost me there. The penis what?

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 24 points 7 months ago

penis mightier than the sword

Title of my sex tape.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

That takes me back to SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! One of the best recurring sketches in their entire 48-year history IMO!

As a side note, it's not every day you get to share a clip that starts with "I hate you" 😂

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] geekworking@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

Especially religious books. Not going along with some religious book definitely holds the record for most people killed.

[-] thorbot@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That's why my buddy Mike Johnson and I use CovenentEyes (tm) to protect us from all the hot gayness that just absolutely LEAPS out of the computer screens at us, too bad I can't get an analogue version for all the books with hot gayness that tries to attack us!

edit: 1 downvote? I didn't know my boi MJ was on lemmy! Yo whaddup ya fucking theocratic loon

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

Books don't make people gay. Attractive people of the same sex make you gay.

Well, that, and what I assume is a brain development process before or during puberty that I don't completely understand but I know has to exist, because I don't remember making a concious effort to be attracted to legs and striking eyes, but I sure am. I bet there is a rabbit hole where I could learn about all this.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you're miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.

And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc... they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.

I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 46 points 7 months ago

What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They'll tell you that you shouldn't even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] Dominojack@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

The difference between a gun and tractor is that a gun is a tool designed to kill. Don't conflate farming equipment with killing machines

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 28 points 7 months ago

The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.

The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.

Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They're only useful if you intend to attack people.

Same goes for handguns.

[-] CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

The US doesn’t have a problem with fully automatic or select fire weapons. They exist, sure. But given they’ve been banned since 1986 and are prohibitively expensive to own, requiring multiple tax stamps and hoops to jump through, they are almost assuredly not used in violent crime. Or for anything other than hobbyist activities.

What seems to garner the most attention here are semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. There is almost nothing mechanical differentiating an AR-15 or similar rifle from a common hunting or farming rifle like the Ruger American Rifle. They’re often mislabeled an “assault weapon”, a term without a concrete definition, or worse an “assault rifle” which does have a concrete definition that aligns to the very guns you call out as not having practical use. Namely, to qualify as an assault rifle, it must be capable of select fire or fully automatic fire.

Ironically, most acts of violence committed using a firearm are done with pistols, which outside of demonstrably ineffective magazine limitations have gone widely untouched by proposed or enacted gun control efforts. Which is especially ironic considering that the NFA was enacted in 1934 primarily focused on handguns - this is why the US has restrictions on ownership of short barreled rifles and shotguns, because the impetus was to focus on weapons which could be easily concealed. By the time the law was passed, however, pistols had been exempted, but the weird language around SBRs and SBSs was left intact.

Broadly, though, gun control in the US has been primarily motivated by class and racial division. Most of the FUD you hear about guns is directly the result of Reagan’s gun control policies as Governor of California in response to not wanting the Black Panthers to have legal access to firearms - which they were using to protect their neighborhoods from violent crime that police wouldn’t respond to. Criminalizing certain weapons gave police the ability to profile and discriminate against minorities under the guise of public safety, and we’ve been treading that water ever since.

The solution to America’s perceived gun problem is universal basic income and universal healthcare. Ending the war on drugs would help too. Without the stress of being impoverished and without having to worry about being able to afford medical care, people tend not to commit crimes. Most gun violence in the US is gang related, and US policies today systemically and disproportionately see the incarceration of people of color for violent and non-violent crime alike. Our penal system is geared for punishment, not rehabilitation, so a person who is now a felon is left with very few options to make an honest living. People turn to gangs to make money, because without income you cannot live in this country.

Eliminate the poverty, decouple healthcare from employers, and stop criminalizing drugs - subsequently arresting and incarcerating so many people for non-violent offenses - and you dramatically reduce the likelihood of a person being left in desperation with few options outside of a life of crime. In turn, gang violence and gun crime overall will plummet.

We’re just too busy picking a team and rooting for the other team’s destruction to actually attack the root of the problem, because doing that might make people realize that it’s all been set up like this to keep us from looking at the class division more closely.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 15 points 7 months ago

The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.

Because of that, anything restricting that "right" at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.

With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.

The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.

It's also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don't drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.

And that's the issue here.

The "right" needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.

Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren't in your situation.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[-] steal_your_face@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago

Guns don’t kill people, books kill people.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 14 points 7 months ago

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
2088 points (96.8% liked)

Political Memes

4629 readers
1598 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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS