this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)

The Right Can't Meme

983 readers
1 users here now

About

This community is about making fun of dumb right wing memes. Here you will find some of the cringiest memes that the right has ever posted on the internet.

Rules

  1. All posts must be memes containing right wing cringe

  2. No unrelated content

  3. No bigotry

  4. Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No Exceptions.

Other Communities

!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world

!leftism@lemmy.world

!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] po-lina-ergi@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

For anybody who doesn't understand the argument, it's specifically a rebuttal to the idea that "The second amendment only applies to muzzle loaded muskets because nothing more advanced existed at the time"

"Free speech only applies to newspapers and soapboxes because nothing more advanced existed at the time"

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

well you could argue that digital is an extension of signaling using a form of light and sound - which has existed since prehistory.

However, pedal bicycles and cars are on a similar spectrum (+ horses, tractors, mopeds, powered scooters...) and are subject to different laws.

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And guns are just a way to transfer stored energy into a projectile that moves much faster than a human can do without the help of tools - which has existed since prehistory

[–] ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fully automatic assault atlatl when?

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yup. Also, they aren’t saying “if we lose guns everyone should lose the right to free speech as well”

They are saying that, since the right to free speech is clearly and self evidently important in modern mediums, the second amendment clearly extends to modern technology as well.

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not a bad counterargument to that claim, we've just moved so far past that into the cost-benefit-analysis stage. The cost to keep the 2nd ammendment as it is is pretty fucking high.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

These conversations always stunlock me. We are months away from living in a dictatorship in the U.S. and ya'll are talking about what exactly? Revising the 2nd amendment? Can you please explain that to me?

Because you simply must be out of your fucking mind if you think disarming yourself in the face of Ya'll Queda is the course of action.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I hear you but also: school shooters

Plus the dictator thing isn't a guarantee, and even if he does win there's still the possibility of impeachment when he's prosecuted for inciting an insurrection

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Why is the other half of the second amendement always ignored?

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 year ago

It's literally communist north Korea's if I don't have a nuke detonator up my ass at all times

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The problem is taking the amendments as unchangeable and almost divinely commanded. They were things written by people hundreds of years ago, and they can be changed. They're literally called amendments. It doesn't matter whether the second amendment protects gun rights, it's up to us nowadays to decide if we want people to have the right to a gun, decided based on our ethical arguments, not what an old document says.

I say this as a non American, it's just pretty weird to me that even the anti gun people defend their position by quoting the second amendment (usually), rather than suggesting changing it.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It's not even just that amendments happen, its that as written laws the US constitution is terribly drafted. It is vague, doesn't define many of the terms it uses and is full of edge cases that it doesn't deal with.

It's more a statement of ideology than actual law, which means you need a whole system of court decisions that lay out the actual practical interpretations that courts are supposed to follow, which of course are decided based on the political needs of the day so they are a total mess.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

They appear to be saying that if they aren't allowed to own military style automatic weapons for "home defense" then they want all freedoms of speech revoked across all media platforms. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but that seems to be the gist of the message.

Edit: my poor spelling

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

What you appear to be saying is that both major political ideologies in this country are actively trying to strip our rights and what they disagree on is which should be taken first

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jontree255@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So no more spewing hate speech disguised as “free speech” and inciting violence on Facebook and Twitter right? Right?

[–] ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine wanting to own the GOP so much you sell your right to speech. You fucking lunatic

[–] jontree255@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m pointing out that whoever made this meme probably didn’t consider that right wing chudds get away with saying a lot of fucked up shit on social because it’s considered “free speech”. See: Libs of TikTok (fuck them).

Restricting the first amendment cuts both ways.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'll take false equivalency for $400, Alex

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you are scared of semi-automatic rifles, wait until you find out about fully-semi-automatic rifles.

[–] survivalmachine@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do the mass shooting statistics say? More mass killings with full auto, semi-auto, or non-auto firearms? Or does the type not matter and they're all pretty much used equally? I always hear about semi-auto, but the media never mentions full auto rifles in school shootings and such. Or whatever fully-semi-automatic means.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fully semi automatic (probably) refers to semi auto with a modification like a bump stock

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No I'm referring to the nonsense term used by news casters when talking about semi-auto guns. Fully-semi-auto don't exist.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Cool! It's hard to catch sarcasm over text :)

load more comments
view more: next ›