this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
2042 points (96.7% liked)

Political Memes

5419 readers
3751 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 57 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

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

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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".

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because gun control is racist and classist.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's "gun control" and then there's "gun control". Disarming people because you're afraid of them and disarming people that have a criminal record and mental health issues are not the same thing.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 4 points 11 months ago

disarming people that have a criminal record

This is already the law.

mental health issues

As NAMI says:

The truth is that the vast majority of violence is not perpetrated by people with mental illness — in fact, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime or self-inflicted injury. The myth that people with mental illness are violent perpetuates stigma and distracts from the real issues.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

NRA-Supported

That's a bit reductive, the NRA was a casual gun club when that happened. In response to them supporting the Mulford Act, the membership overthrew the leadership and turned it into the very political organization

The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act. It's the same as when modern Republicans claim to be the party of Lincoln

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act.

There was a presidential race three years after the "Revolt". The NRA chose to endorse a candidate in that race. Given what we discussed so far, (and knowing I involuntarily rolled my eyes so hard that I sprained them after reading your quoted claim above), can you tell me which presidential candidate the NRA endorsed in 1980?

That's right, sports fans, the Mulford Act supposedly had gun owners revolting against NRA leaders in '77, but by '80, they were endorsing the asshole who had signed it.

In 2012, there was exactly one presidential candidate in the race who had previously signed a gun ban. That candidate was the one who somehow "earned" NRA endorsement.

The NRA is a Republican front that occasionally masquerades as a gun rights organization, and its members are suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, repeatedly going back to their abuser.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Before 1977, the NRA supported Reagan's Mulford Act.

After 1977, the NRA supported Reagan's presidency.

You do understand that these aren't two people who both happened to be named Reagan, right? You are aware that both of these Reagans are actually the same person?

"Well, I know he fucked us over in 1967, but he can change! And if we don't support him now, he might not be there when we need him!"

It was despicable for the NRA to support him in 1980. It was despicable for the NRA to support Romney in 2012. The Revolt in '77 was the membership calling the police against an abusive husband, then refusing to press charges.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

That it happened? No, not a matter of opinion.

But post-revolt NRA still backed the Governor who signed the Mullford Act when he ran for President just 3 years after the Revolt at Cincinnati. So clearly the supposed goals of post-revolt NRA weren't so important as to not support any and every Republican to follow.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Those things are crazy. I sometimes wonder why nobody has gone into a killing spree with one, but I suppose a brain that is able to train using such a thing successfully is not compatible with a brain that does killing sprees.

edit Well ok, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/world/europe/norway-murder-bow-arrow-terrorism.html

[–] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Same! I actually volunteer with an organization called Operation Blazing Sword where we teach LGBTQ+ folks how to safely use firearms by taking them to the gun range and providing ammunition for practice.

Banning guns keeps the people who most need to protect themselves from being able to do so.

Gun control was started in the US as a racist measure to make it difficult for black Americans to protect themselves.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Hey! Nicely done I have my own private range and have been wanting to volunteer for blazing sword. Especially in this rural ass area I'm in.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Self defense with a firearm is exceedingly rare in the US. People who claim that guns are used for self-protection haven't done any research to back it up and don't realize that more guns in people's hands just leads to more danger for everyone.

https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/

https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gun-ownership-not-effective-means-self-defense-gun-control-p-171

And often, firearms in the home cause more danger for domestic violence victims than protection because abusers escalate to homicide using the weapons available to them.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Here's the thing though, I'm me. Statistics aren't convincing because I'm exceptional. Are most people less safe with guns around? Maybe, but most people are a lot shorter than I am too.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Sorry if you're being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?

[–] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The bourgeoisie takes rights away from the proletariat. The bourgeoisie have outlived there usefulness and the proletariat should rise up against them.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yeah but how come workers in Europe, who don't have guns, have 100X the rights of workers in the US, who do have guns?

Is it because people with guns are scared little pussies?

Because, to be honest, that's how it looks!

[–] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

In the US the bourgeoisie is so powerful and have brain washed the people so much that the bourgeoisie feels comfortable letting the proletariat fuck around with guns. All the gun owners are so caught up with being scared of the people the bourgeoisie told them to be scared of that they don't realize that lgbtq+ community and other races are still more or less in the same bloat and that the bourgeoisie harms them all. One day the tools of the oppressors will be used by the oppressed to gain control.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

One day

I'll be honest mate, I'm old and I've been hearing this for forty years.

All that's happened is that public shootings have increased, dramatically

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I unfortunately agree with this take. Blips of independence here and there get crushed by inexorable legal/monetary punishment of those who disagree with the system.

I wait quietly for the right opportunity, but am concerned I'll be waiting for a long time.