this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
727 points (97.9% liked)

Political Memes

12252 readers
1655 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

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

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

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

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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 28 points 4 days ago (28 children)

We need to stop pushing the narrative that guns are only for Republicans. The second amendment is for everyone, and everyone should be fighting to protect it.

[–] Machindo@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

While I agree, you might be missing the value here. This poster is exceptionally good agitprop to dunk on a short sighted chud uncle or father. Possibly strong enough to make them think for at least a few seconds about their stupid and dangerous opinions.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Fair enough, though going after the 2nd isn't going to help us find common ground and that's what we need if we're ever going to unite and fight the real enemy. It's a huge wedge issue and part of the reason some people's entire political thought process is "own the libs".

[–] SalamiDommie@lemmus.org 4 points 4 days ago

I would contend guns are the perfect unifier for left and right people groups. I don't know anyone that doesn't stand in agreement that our governing body needs to be well aware that the people are armed against them.

And we the people need to know we are unified to prevent a governing body from splitting the room and taking advantage of us.

[–] SalamiDommie@lemmus.org 9 points 4 days ago

As a Democrat and a gun owner/lover I fully agree.

I am always perplexed at how many of my fellow Dems and Progressives will tout the issues with big gov or totalitarian govs and then also think that there should be sweeping restrictions on guns.

Minority communities LOVE guns too.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] superweeniehutjrs@lemmy.world 67 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Oddly enough it works like this for silencers to my understanding. And concealed carry to an extent.

But yeah people would riot without their guns

[–] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 43 points 5 days ago (6 children)

And people think sound suppressors are only for assassins. What if I just want to do some target shooting without blowing out my ear drums? It's a valid reasoning.

[–] ToastedCoconuts@piefed.blahaj.zone 27 points 5 days ago (10 children)

They really should call them dampeners, because you still need hearing protection while using a silencer

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 48 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Conservatives and the right don't care if they're being hypocritical or ignoring how this applies to something they do like. They want the SAVE act because it will benefit them or their side, specifically, not because it's "a good law for everyone" and they don't want a gun version of it because it will restrict them, specifically. they'd probably be fine with a gun version that only restricts Democrats, "the left", trans people, people of color, and any other "outsider".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This is not a great analogy, blue states do sometimes pass legislation that rhymes with these types of identity-based threats to gun rights. It is sometimes prohibitively difficult to get a CHL in certain states when your chosen name doesn't match your legal name. A few years ago Oregon almost passed an act by citizen referendum that would have had police precincts be responsible for verifying that identities matched licenses, with desk cops screening people's psych histories ("Uh, their license says Samuel, male but the document says Samantha, female? Oh and what's this, they're on several medications including a mood stabilizer? Denied.'). I'm glad that OP's poster isn't pitching their hypothetical analogy as a positive, but I want to be clear for the people playing team sports with their politics that identity-based rights abuses are all bad.

But yes, that Oregon referendum did get modified to remove the potentially abusive parts. And yes, it was because Republicans and libertarian types semi-successfully challenged it in court.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago (9 children)

I would not support this. While I support gun control, the SAVE act is designed to discriminate against women. I don't want to grab women by the pistol.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] TheDankMemegician36@thelemmy.club 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Tell me you've never actually bought a gun without telling me you've never bought a gun.

[–] SalamiDommie@lemmus.org 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This ALL DAY. Even the states with the loosest laws have about that many conditions.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I bought one from a private person with…nothing. No documents at all. Just cash.

[–] SalamiDommie@lemmus.org 1 points 2 days ago

Just because you did it doesn't mean you did what you are supposed to.

Granted, what you did doesn't upset me. Also - what you did can be done in any country, no matter their laws.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Still not sure why someone doesnt just propose this. Exact bill, change the topic.

load more comments (1 replies)

Also, not even a part of that act, but just buy virtue of an executive order, all states must register all gun owners and share that registry to a central federal body who will use knowingly outdated and massively incorrect data (and probably politically motivated bullshit as well) to automatically remove people from the registration without notification and make exercising gun ownership a felony if you're not on that registry. And any state that doesn't submit to this will have all of their citizen's ability to use federal services curtailed, and likely more punishments later like restricting federal dollars they are owed.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Those are not currently requisites for owning a gun or rifle in the US ?

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Nope. Because of loopholes like private sales, someone can privately purchase a firearm from another person with basically nothing more than a look in the eye, a firm handshake and an exchange of money.

To purchase from a gun store there are rules and regulations that apply, and a very simple background check but really it doesn't take much, and with enough money most processes can be "sped up"

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

There are so many conditions on private sale that this answer is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of Americans live in a state that either requires that private sales go through an FFL (The federal firearm dealer license) or has other background check requirements with failure penalties on the seller severe enough that you'd want to protect yourself by going through an FFL anyway. And private sale across state lines is federally illegal, eg someone in Missouri can't do a private sale to someone from Oregon. And you cannot "speed up" a federal background check with money, the check is not run by the FFL themselves, they're just a trustworthy party that submits your paperwork to the feds. The wait time is entirely dependent on federal backlog and one's law enforcement records.

Law firm site with a list of private sale laws per state: https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have an anecdote, albeit a little old. Circa 2010 I was living in the US (WI). Traded an old bar fridge I didn't need to a friend for a 30-06 rifle. It was the first firearm I owned while living there. I then went to my local police and asked if there was any kind of registration process I should go through and they said nope, we don't care. Not saying you're wrong, just one experience I had.

When I bought a shotgun from a store after that I did have to wait 3 days, I presumed at the time because I wasn't a citizen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)

Ok but like, this is basically how it is already. Then look at Illinois, there's an entire extra license you need to get to even buy or own a gun or ammo

[–] wirebeads@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 days ago (18 children)

Americans are a funny breed of chimps. They wax poetic about the 2nd amendment and how they need it to protect themselves from a tyrannical government when a guy with mental health issues goes in and shoots up a school murdering innocent children and teachers.

But when they actually need to put that line item into action, they’re swinging deep into the forests away from any type of conflict.

Trump has proven that the American constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and has the resale value of a roll of toilet paper.

Enjoy fascism American. You’ve voted for this shit, twice.

[–] Ethan0l_C2H60@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This will probably sound rude, but I don't mean it to be: what is the point of this comment?

I agree with you that America as a whole deserves whatever it is getting right now, but I also believe collective punishment is immoral. Everyone who voted against this doesn't deserve it, that doesn't mean anyone else has an obligation to save them from it, but they definitely don't deserve it.

So why laugh at Americans, or rub this in their faces? Especially here on this platform where almost everyone is directly opposed to the current administration, and didn't vote for it. If you were saying this to Trump supporters I guess I could understand it, but it still wouldn't help anything.

So I'm genuinely curious, do you think this kind of comment helps anything? If so, what?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›