The Political Memes Thread (memes too spicy for Channel Zero)

[Mercer]

What happens if a seagull can't pay the fine?

 

[Mercer]

[Kults]

29 minutes ago, Mercer said:

What happens if a seagull can't pay the fine?

 

We eat it

[abrasivesaint]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

No trial, no jury, just an accusation and armed men come to your peaceful neighborhood and rob you.

 

 

 

 

 

If this didn’t play out the way it did i’m sure there could have been a court case to discuss getting his firearms back. 

[abrasivesaint]

 

[misteraven]

6 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

If this didn’t play out the way it did i’m sure there could have been a court case to discuss getting his firearms back. 

This entire situation is wrong, beginning to end. No doubt it played out in the worst possible outcome, but red flag laws are not only a slippery slope, but a blatant violation of the Constitution. 

 

It's yet another bad precedent and unfortunately, likely a sign of whats coming.

[misteraven]

10 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

 

Yep, this is where we're at. People on edge, people arguing with each other, people happy to give up increasingly large amounts of personal freedom for the illusion of safety.

[abrasivesaint]

Just now, misteraven said:

This entire situation is wrong, beginning to end. No doubt it played out in the worst possible outcome, but red flag laws are not only a slippery slope, but a blatant violation of the Constitution. 

 

It's yet another bad precedent and unfortunately, likely a sign of whats coming.

I don’t disagree. I understand the idea of a red flag law, i also understand how easily this gets way, way worse. I’m not sure it’s a sign of what’s coming, but time will tell. 

 

 

[misteraven]

4 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

I’m not sure it’s a sign of what’s coming, but time will tell. 

Already happening man. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. Google how many other places are debating implementing red flag laws. Watch how this issue builds steadily as it has been for the last few years.

[abrasivesaint]

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Yep, this is where we're at. People on edge, people arguing with each other, people happy to give up increasingly large amounts of personal freedom for the illusion of safety.

I agree. Situations like this, red flag laws you mentioned previously, and controlled speech are building blocks for authoritarianism to slip its weasel-y little foot further in the door and into our lives and homes.   

[misteraven]

2 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

I agree. Situations like this, red flag laws you mentioned previously, and controlled speech are building blocks for authoritarianism to slip its weasel-y little foot further in the door and into our lives and homes.   

Indeed... When you start to add up all the little bits, you can really see it coming together. 

[abrasivesaint]

I know various states have implemented the laws, and i know there’s varied opinions on how effective they are. I’m not totally against the concept, but 100% understand how quick that slope can turn into a landslide. I just don’t know that i buy that it will, although i understand it is entirely likely and/or possible. 

 

Anyone who has their firearms taken can get them back after a court hearing and the confiscation can usually only be extended after an order to do so and another court hearing. Now i know how fast that gets dangerous. I’ve been through the court system a few times. Things get dragged out, motions after motions get filed delaying the process, and if you’re paying privately for a defense lawyer it gets to the point where you can’t afford it anymore, so unless you do your homework and represent yourself, they win. I think we all understand that concept. 

 

I mentioned previously i can’t legally own firearms in my home state. Had I owned them prior to the situations that led to no longer legally being able to own one, i probably would have been on a red flag list.

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint
Spelling and shit

[misteraven]

You're making a blanket statement about what are state laws. Those laws will vary significantly between states. 

 

The entire reason there's a time limit to the NICS system is because it'll get abused without it. Precisely why there is also a block on a centralized database of gun owners, as well as a ban on public funds allocated towards firearms research. The federal government has a specific window in which to issue a response through the NICS system or the request is automatically approved. Reality is there should be no check if we were to follow the letter of the law according to the bill of rights, but at least this check / balance keeps the system from being abused outright.

 

To say that red flag laws are okay in shape or form means that you're okay with the bill of rights being violated, despite the fact that they were drafted and ratified to make clear a minimum number of human rights, that if you're an American, what was to supersede all else. The us constitution, and bill of rights especially, was drafted as a check on government, not as what government declared was okay for the individual.

 

 

[aimer]

I’m not gonna pretend I know anything about American politics or gun laws, just chuckled when I saw this 

[misteraven]

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

You're making a blanket statement about what are state laws. Those laws will vary significantly between states. 

You’re right about this. I meant to clarify that i understood they vary state to state and forgot to do so. 

 

Quote

 

The entire reason there's a time limit to the NICS system is because it'll get abused without it. Precisely why there is also a block on a centralized database of gun owners, as well as a ban on public funds allocated towards firearms research. The federal government has a specific window in which to issue a response through the NICS system or the request is automatically approved. Reality is there should be no check if we were to follow the letter of the law according to the bill of rights, but at least this check / balance keeps the system from being abused outright.

 

To say that red flag laws are okay in shape or form means that you're okay with the bill of rights being violated, despite the fact that they were drafted and ratified to make clear a minimum number of human rights, that if you're an American, what was to supersede all else. The us constitution, and bill of rights especially, was drafted as a check on government, not as what government declared was okay for the individual.

 

 

Violated, no, amended, possibly. Not repealed, amended. It is in fact itself an amendment. Why must the Bill of Rights being so locked in stone? We amend laws all the time, they become out dated. Yet for some reason, guns laws are deemed untouchable. 

 

Obviously, like you said Raven, guns are low hanging fruit to previously discussed issues. There are plenty of factors involved in gun deaths. Guns are simply the means to the end. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint
Improper wording, specifically use of the wor ratify.

[abrasivesaint]

40 minutes ago, misteraven said:

100% understand the dangerousness of this. 

 

I will ask then, what are other solutions in your opinion? 

 

Mass shootings are naturally the topic at hand as it is most recent but i mean across the board. Gang shootings, mass shootings.. what are the alternatives. 

 

Fentynol doesn’t kill people, improper use of it does. I’m not saying it should be illegal as it certainly has it’s medical purposes, but it’s obviously a problem in illegal drug use.

[abrasivesaint]

I asked my friends from Australia and the Netherlands to elaborate on their gun laws, they were fairly similar. 

 

“You can have semi auto pistols, double action revolvers, lever & bolt action shotguns (not pump), and lever, bolt & pump rifles. Just have a farm or join a gun range.

 

You can get more guns but that requires a difference license.

 

However most mass shootings we have had have been with illegal weapons because it's gang related.

 

I don't know why they just don't make it a requirement to join a milita to own a rifle in America as that is literally the point of the second amendment.

 

We used to have heaps of trained militas in Australia but our gun laws (post Port Arthur) we designed to remove them.”

 

- directly quoted from the Australian friend. Who is far from a “take their guns!” leftist. He actually would be considered Far-Right in America as he is a (self proclaimed) White, Nationalist, Conservative, Male who makes some questionable remarks on race from time to time. 

 

Why not toy with laws similar to Australia? 

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Kults]

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

However most mass shootings we have had have been with illegal weapons because it's gang related.

 

 

Why not toy with laws similar to Australia? 

1- Source? 

 

2- Hell no. That was a disaster. 

[Kults]

8 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

 

Fentynol doesn’t kill people, improper use of it does. I’m not saying it should be illegal as it certainly has it’s medical purposes, but it’s obviously a problem in illegal drug use.

More people die in car accidents. Should we ban cars too?

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

Why not toy with laws similar to Australia? 

The short answer: The Australian public seems like it prefers a somewhat more totalitarian state when compared to America. We've historically had a much stronger tradition (in general) of favoring "Innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to political theory. Taking away someone's rights without a trial used to be looked down upon.

 

Obviously in the current political climate that's no longer the case. In the name of drug wars Republicans prefer "civil asset forfeiture" (State Theft)  laws where the state can seize your property without proving a thing, simply implying you may have been involved in a victimless crime somehow. They also prefer a system where locking up, or excluding certain flavors of brown people on "suspicion", with no trial, phone call, or lawyer is the norm. So we have people that hate freedom here just as much. The paradox is this same political party (that should be defending "innocent until proven guilty" values in relation to gun rights) is in stark contrast in favor of 2nd amendment rights in comparison to their 2 party opponents. Ironically, they're the party actually responsible for passing many of the modern gun laws via Reagan's "Brady Bill" severely infringing on these rights.. 

[Kults]

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, Kults said:

More people die in car accidents. Should we ban cars too?

Thats not even close to what i was saying. Was not talking about banning anything, i said, verbatim, “i’m not saying it should be illegal..” But if you want to address car deaths in comparison to “mass shootings” like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, we can.

 

I’ll argue that the only time you can compare car accidents to a public mass shooting is instances where the car accident resulted in a victim other than the driver themselves, and it was intentional. Most car accidents will be drunk driving, drug use, phone use, or flat out negligence. How many car accident deaths are premeditated attacks? The term “car accident” sort of speaks for itself. There’s no public mass shooting accidents. Nobody was cleaning their firearm in public and accidentally shot a few dozen people. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Kults said:

1- Source? 

 

2- Hell no. That was a disaster. 

My source was an Australian friend who’s political opinions i usually largely disagree with. I’m asking him for more information as i’m sure he has a better idea of where to look. However, i did some homework for you. Here’s a story stating Australias 3rd mass shooting since 1996. According to a wikipedia page, there’s been 3-9 depending on definition of mass shooting since the change of gun laws, again, in 1996. The only argument here would be the population vs the US population. If i’m not mistaken Australia’s population is about the population of Los Angeles. 

 

Explain how their gun laws were a disaster. That is a vague claim and you posted nothing to support it. 

[Kults]

7 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

. Explain how their gun laws were a disaster. That is a vague claim and you posted nothing to support it. 

https://reason.com/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent/

 

Quote

When politicians announce that they don't tolerate something, it's a fair bet that the something is completely out of hand.

"Police admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals," the Adelaide Advertiser conceded a few years ago. "Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms—including fully automatic weapons."

Quote

What the law couldn't do—what prohibitions can never accomplish—was eliminate demand for what was forbidden. And demand has an inescapable habit of generating sources of supply. If that demand can't be legally satisfied, it will be met through black market channels.

So your source is `my friend from Australia` 

 

:/

 

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tld-documents.llnassets.com/0007000/7275/failedexperimentguncontrol.pdf

 

Quote

This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a),

 

[abrasivesaint]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

The short answer: The Australian public seems like it prefers a somewhat more totalitarian state when compared to America. We've historically had a much stronger tradition (in general) of favoring "Innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to political theory. 

I can somewhat agree to this. As far as i recall in any past discussions he said most people were willing to comply and turning in certain guns, and those who werent just didnt and they didnt do all that much about. 

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

Obviously in the current political climate that's no longer the case. In the name of drug wars Republicans prefer "civil asset forfeiture" (State Theft)  laws where the state can seize your property without proving a thing, simply implying you may have been involved in a victimless crime somehow. They also prefer a system where locking up, or excluding certain flavors of brown people on "suspicion", with no trial, phone call, or lawyer is the norm. So we have people that hate freedom here just as much. The paradox is this same political party (that should be defending "innocent until proven guilty" values in relation to gun rights) is in stark contrast in favor of 2nd amendment rights in comparison to their 2 party opponents. Ironically, they're the party actually responsible for passing many of the modern gun laws via Reagan's "Brady Bill" severely infringing on these rights.. 

Well Brady's Bill was passed under Clinton if i’m not mistaken and was named after Brady who was caught in the fire. I’m curious exactly what about their rights were infringed upon. I feel most background check requirements are pretty fair, and they specifically exclude me from purchases firearms, and again, i thoroughly enjoy firearms. 

[abrasivesaint]

[Kults]

Cool, again ignore everything I post and reply with vague screenshots. Did you even take the time to read what I linked or posted

 

You criticized alt news sources as inaccurate and yet use wiki to back your arguments..you know anyone can edit wiki right..

 

Also 0 context no idea what youre even trying to say anymore

[abrasivesaint]

No, those are in reference to the stories i mentioned initially. Here..

 

38 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

However, i did some homework for you. Here’s a story stating Australias 3rd mass shooting since 1996. According to a wikipedia page, there’s been 3-9 depending on definition of mass shooting since the change of gun laws, again, in 1996. The only argument here would be the population vs the US population. If i’m not mistaken Australia’s population is about the population of Los Angeles. 

I forgot to post the stories so i posted the screen shots. 

 

Ok, now i’m definitely throwing out ad hominem attacks.. Are you fucking retarded? That BBC screenshot clearly states in June of 2019 they had the third “mass shooting” since the gun laws were established in 1996. The wiki post was to shot there has been 3-9 depending on your definition of mass shooting. 

 

I did read those links you sent and what they basically said was..

 

- making things illegal doesn't make them go away, they thrive in the black market. 

 

True.

 

- the rate of homicide has remained constant or moderately decreased. It has not risen as calling it a “disaster” alludes to. 

 

True.

 

-biker gangs like to kill each other. 

 

True..

 

again, how was it a disaster? They have had 3-9 major public shootings since 1996, 23 years ago. The United States had 3 last week. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Kults]

Ya, get fucked retard. I can do it too.

 

You failed miserably to back up your claims and go to full spaz out mode. It didnt even take that long either.

[abrasivesaint]

Just to break things up a bit..