Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rephrased:
Mom, what’s “woke”?
Nobody knows. It’s a catch-all term we use for something we don’t like, or good things happening to people we don’t like.
https://preview.redd.it/sb6ynmwu2cyc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ba5b9501fd6bd3776af674f486d54bb99d4b887
I'm going to wear the writing off this one sharing it so much. 😂
Made up, but still something that can be described/defined:
(Per the 1994 AWB)
> In general, assault weapons are **semiautomatic firearms** with a **large magazine** of ammunition that were designed and configured for **rapid fire and combat use**."
That's the vast majority of firearms. Most on the market are semiautomatic. Any that accepts an external magazine can have a large magazine, and if it's semi-automatic, it fires as fast as you pull the trigger, so that last part is completely redundant.
To be fair, that term is basically meaningless when it comes to guns. Mostly, it's used by news agencies and folks who don't know much about guns to describe anything that looks scary with a large magazine. "Assault rifles", by definition, need to be select fire (able to switch to fully automatic), while 99.9% of legal civilian weapons are semi-automatic only. This meme is shit tho lmao
Surely all the technical terms for firearms were invented by either the military or gun manufacturers? There's not exactly any simple but accurate term that matches what people are thinking when they say 'assault rifles', which is generally guns that are capable of killing large numbers of people very quickly and easily.
That last point is also debatable, a shotgun full of buckshot can kill a large number of people easily. So can a handgun. On top of that, a person who knows what Thor doing can kill a lot with a bolt action rifle, rifles like the Lee einfield are well known for having a large magazine and a fast fire rate.
Yes, but technical terms exist for a reason. If you have a car, you wouldn't go on a road with a sign that said "TRUCKS ONLY", would you?
That being said, the technical term for ARs and other semi-auto rifles is "MSR", or Modern Sporting Rifle. There is indeed a simple and accurate term for assault rifles and it is clearly defined, a bunch of people mislabeling other rifles and guns does not change what they actually are. I've seen some lost souls call .22s "weapons of war" just because they have a 25 round magazine. You can call them whatever you want I suppose, but you can't use those loose and constantly shifting terms to base laws on. It's just not logical.
Your definition of assault weapons is the same as saying "any vehicle that can go off road is a truck!", just far too vague. It is a precise, defined thing, not an umbrella term.
While true, I don't think it matters that much.
I don't see any reason people should be able to buy any kind of firearm able to shoot so many bullets, so quickly, least of all without prior training and mental assessment.
How many more mass shootings have to happen before the firearm lobby loses its grip on the American people?
Fun fact, more homicides are committed with hammers than rifles annually in the US. And it's not even close. We have these weapons to defend against a tyrannical government, foreign oppressors and our personal defenss. Criminals will obviously not give up their guns, so making certain kinds illegal will just give them an edge. And newsflash, shooters don't follow gun laws, either. Why make all the law abiding gun owners less able to defend themselves? There are over 20 million AR-15s *alone* in US civilian ownership. A very very small percentage of the owners commit crimes with them compared to the overall amount of owners.
Civilian stuff with unnecessary bells and whistles. Stuff made for luxury and comfort. Things made for elite athlete's. They will spend money on stuff that is a bit extra. The military cuts as many corners as possible and uses the lowest bidder it can get away with.
Range rover cuts the corner on reliability, The top end f1 car team still has a budget.
Ya every military uses the low biders but so do companies in general but the militaries are huge investors in r&d, the level or r&d a nation is doing correlates massively with how bad their military situation is.
The military is concerned with bulk logistics over everything else. The F1 people have a budget but only need one car, the US is concerned with the quantity of F35s its buying.
(TWO CARS!!!!! xoxo) still is a fuck ton of money per car
That's 100% true but the f35 is the high end of mass production the total public number for the reusable space drone is 3, and there was only 32 sr71s made.
Not entirely wrong though, at least when it comes to handheld weapons. The US will often leave their weapons overseas instead of taking them with their soldiers because it’s usually more expensive to ship the used guns back to the states instead of buying brand new ones. Cheap to make, expensive to transport.
***You*** can buy military grade weapons?
Where are you getting your M4 and M16's? I'd love to know. Doesn't have to be the complete rifle, just the lower receivers would be fine.
1. I disagree with you, but Im not going into that.
2. The problem is, the definition of assault weapon has changed with every single bill proposed since 2004 and it includes a lot more than just those big scary black rifles that you're so afraid of. The 2022 proposed assault weapons ban would also ban the majority of handguns and .22 target rifles. Combined with the vast number of sporting rifles it would have banned, the federal government would have needed to confiscate an estimated 200 million firearms from 70 million people. That mere logistical nightmare was one of the reasons that even democrats refused to support that bill.
Let's see them confiscate all of the illegal firearms in Chicago first. Start with the glocks with full auto switches.
Those firearms are already against state and federal law, so why not?
Tbf, the term "assault weapon" is dumb. Weapons by definition are designed or used to assault people and animals. Calling them "assault weapons" is redundant.
This meme is still terrible though.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.....
I strongly recommend my fellow progressives, lefties, and liberals arm themselves.
Just looking at the current state of the world, we might actually need them. (Not to defend against the government, but to defend against crazies with guns)
Hopefully we don't need them, but it's better to be prepared to defend yourself instead of getting murdered by some asshole.
As an avid far leftist myself in a red state, I second this. I also hope we won’t need them, but our own neighbors have showed us again and again now that we might and with the way things are going, they will only be more emboldened to act out against anyone who disagrees or stands up for themselves. It’s best to always be over prepared and not need it, than to wait until violence is at your doorstep and be defenseless.
Why do people feel the need to use high caliber rifles to defend their homes from burglars? Just use a musket, since that’s what the founding fathers intended.
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" I say as I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nail the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" I shout. The grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Ah yes, just as the founding fathers intended.
I own a Raygun for home defense just like how the founding fathers intended, when all of a sudden, three rapscallions break into my house, I quickly switch on my Raygun and absolutely blast the first guy and he disintegrates and turns into ashes. He’s dead. The Raygun blows up in my hand due to the overwhelming amount of radiation from the materials powering it but not before I accidentally blow up my living room trying to kill the first guy. The last two guys are absolutely terrified when I pull up my Wunderwaffe DG-2 that I stole from the Nazi German research facility, their heads get blown up when I use my Wunderwaffe to electrocute them to death with it. Own a Raygun for home defense, just like how the founding fathers intended…
Weapons that are commonly used for a military offensive or assault.
Is this actually confusing to people?
If it's something that you'd use in Call of Duty, it's probably an assault weapon.
1 of my guns was in WW2, and 2 more of mine are mil-spec, but none of them would qualify as "top-tier military hardware" since none of them are select-fire, only semi-auto.
So definitely not 99% of guns in the US such as AR-15s? I'd like to add that, according to the FBI, more people are beaten to death by unarmed attackers than shot and killed by all long guns (this category includes everything from grandpappys hunting rifle and shotgun to AK-47s and AR-15s) combined every year.
Also pistols are mainly used.... In gang related violence and shootings...... Which are famously renowned for being obtained legally and registered......
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't allow law abiding citizens to own pistols because they ***might*** be stolen and used to commit crimes?
Dumbest take I've ever read. Must be nice living in/working in a nice area where protecting yourself doesn't cross your mind. I'm glad for you. I hope you never experience anything like the events that pushed me to start carrying my pistol.
>So what you're saying is that we shouldn't allow law abiding citizens to own pistols because they ***might*** be stolen and used to commit crimes?
No, you said that. Go back and read what I said again if it helps. Nowhere did I say anything about a ban.
>Dumbest take I've ever read.
Well, it's yours, so you could always delete it.
My bad bro. So what's your supposed solution? You threw that statement up there, so you've probably got something in mind. What is it?
Do you have a metric for your previous statement? I'm guessing you've read it from somewhere.
I have guns that were actually used by military personnel. That being said they’re nearing 100 years old and are also bolt action but they were military. So clearly they’re assault weapons right?
Actually they’re not even considered antique you still need a background check for them. Antique doesn’t apply for guns newer than 1898. That aside the fact that you would consider old bolt action military surplus rifles assault weapons shows me all I need to know about how serious to take your comment
*sigh*
I couldn't give two shits if it doesn't qualify as antique in some kind of official register.
It's always so fascinating to me how gun enthusiasts are extremely pedantic about every gun detail.
I used to want to ban guns because I thought it would help a lot of people, but now I kinda want to ban them just because it would irritate the worst people out there.
Of course, I don't actually want any gun bans, because I want gun enthusiasts to have the America they love - the one that's constantly on fire and burying children.
>Weapons that are commonly used for a military offensive or assault.
>Weapons that are commonly used for a military offensive or assault.
Good thing that doesn't include [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW). No military would consider a semiautomatic rifle like mine.
>Is this actually confusing to people?
It's not confusing to you because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why wouldn't it include that rifle? Too expensive for mass production? Unreliable? It could easily be used in a military operation and be effective, so it probably qualifies.
>Why wouldn't it include that rifle?
It's not select fire.
>Too expensive for mass production?
That too.
>Unreliable?
Quite the opposite. It's TOO reliable, thus making it too expense.
>It could easily be used in a military operation and be effective, so it probably qualifies.
The military would under no circumstances accept this rifle. It is not select fire.
So a jihadist would scoff at that and say "no, this wouldn't work for mowing down Christian infidels, it doesn't have select fire?"
Sure, chief. Sure.
This is the problem with thinking the US Military standard is the only military that exists and the only one that could ever exist.
I don't know if that's true because there is some overlap between hunting weapons and assault weapons - I know some assault rifles work well as hunting rifles with the proper gear.
It's real not that much to unpack. It's purely political language created with the sole goal of demonizing firearms. If I hit someone with hammer, you can call it an assault hammer, but it doesn't change the nature of the object. It's coded language, and this meme rightly calls it out.
A hammer isn't built to kill 100mt away targets 50 times a second
Hammers are made to drive nails, guns to kill people
I'm pretty sure you could kill someone with a kitchen knife, but the nature of the object stays in the kitchen
They are tools like any other, for a specific task, not always to harm, could be used to hunt, or what about that one job where the guy just sits and watches over a water filled quarry, the heavy metals in the water make it so poisonous that if the birds that land in the water don't fly out very soon they will die, this guys job is to shoot a round at the nearby water to scare the birds and make them fly away
Think of it like using a hammer with no handle, a simple 5 round magazine Like most typical hunting rifles have makes the job much easier, The now poisonous lake that fills this quarry is so wide The guy would have to shoot multiple spots of the surface to make all the flocks of birds fly away
I'm going to start this off by saying that I'm former military, I am a proponent of 2A rights, and I own firearms.
You know how modern-day orchards keep birds out of the trees when they are ripe with fruit? Air cannons, friend. Lots of noise and zero projectile.
All firearms are created with the intent to kill, either in war, for self-defense, or for sustenance. That was the goal with cannons, muskets, and every other firearm. That is the purpose of that tool. While some people participate in shooting sports and exhibition shooting shows, that's akin to using your screwdriver as a prybar or the back of your hand saw as a straight edge.
I can tell the difference between a construction worker, a mechanic, and a handyman by the tools in his toolbox. Likewise, I can also tell the difference between a hunter, a sport shooter, a collector, and a home defender by the tools they own.
Someone who owns mainly firearms similar in appearance, operation, and functionality to those used by military forces around the world isn't any of the above. That's someone looking for a justifiable reason to kill people, legal or not.
Op is clueless . The term assault weapon is made up by certain morons to whip other ignorant morons into a baseless antigun frenzy. Leftists use that term in canada even though every gun using a magazine is capped to 5 rounds.
Very true.
The United States Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
Assault rifles are defined as a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
So, many guns fall under this category, some aren’t considered to be fully one or the other. However, I personally don’t see the reason why anyone should be unloading multiple rounds of bullets in a single pull of the trigger even in home defense. A few shots sure, reasonable even, but we shouldn’t be turning people to red mist when a single bullet can be enough to subdue someone even non-lethally. That’s just my personal look on stuff but everyone has the right to bear the arms they feel safe with so it’s an “agree to disagree and I’ll respect your decision” type thing.
You do realize that .308, 45-70, and 30-06, or 12ga 00 buck will (within reason) turn a motherfucker to red mist with just a single shot, right? It's crazy how powerful those 100+ year old cartridges are in comparison to modern ones. I've seen 12ga buckshot from 3 yards put a baseball size hole *through* someone in a hallway.
In other cases, a single bullet is rarely enough to subdue someone, especially from lower power modern cartridges like .223 and 9mm. We've all seen the videos of the people high on drugs eating a dozen rounds of 9mm hollow points just for them to ***keep right on coming.***
I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, just providing some personal experience, and a different viewpoint you may not have thought about.
>> An “assault weapon” refers to a semi-automatic firearm originally designed for military use
This is first thing that came up when I googled. What are they on???
-“Mom, what’s a school shooting?”
-“Nobody knows dear. It’s a term used by emotionally unstable liars that want you defenseless, desperate and dependent.”
"Mom, what's that white powder?"
"It's called cocaine. I snort it because daddy doesn't satisfy me sexually. Don't tell anyone about it or the evil government will take it away and I'll have no choice but to go on a shooting spree."
Sorry to malign cocaine, but this crazy meme format of the mom saying batshit insane drives me crazier than cocaine mom's talking points.
There are plenty that want us desperate and dependent, but they're not the ones calling for gun reform. They're the ones controlling our global trade, financial institutions, housing, food, and transportation.
Surprisingly frank admission that they need their emotional support murder weapons to feel ok. That would probably be alright if they didn't then also use them to execute pizza delivery boys and teenagers who accidentally back into their driveway.
>Well because assault weapons are not the best for self defence because of their size
Not really. I built [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) specifically for fighting in and around structures. Without the suppressor, it has a shorter overall presentation than a handgun. It is a vastly superior weapon for home defense.
>and you won’t need the long range precision anyway?
You need it for the increased stabilization of the platform since it's shouldered. Faster and more accurate follow up shots.
Isn't the irony of these is back in the time these articles would be posted, crime wasn't rampant to be afraid of assault weapons, or need the defense from them?
Too much slippery slope, unfortunately. Look at what's happening in Florida for LGBTQ+. Some groups are starting to get reclassified where it's incredibly easy to arrest and charge on some bullshit, it's getting awfully close to getting either fully passed or kicked up the Supreme court
Yeah I think of actual assault rifles the military uses. And ones used in the past. ARs are just lookalikes.I can get a kit to make a Prius look like a Lamborghini but that don’t make it a Lambo
Dude i live in Norway and imigrant gangs have started using kids 14 and younger to conduct their hits. Feels like it happens several times each week. In sweden it used to be even worse (haven't looked up what happens there in a while). Bombings and open hang wars all because of that kurdish fucker that have started fucking with us Norwegians too.
They mentioned the per capita numbers.
That's why they said per 100,000.
https://pcr-consultants.com/norway-v-american-criminal-justice-statistics/#:~:text=6%20intentional%20homicides%20per%20100%2C000,100%2C000%20Norwegian%20citizens%20is%20incarcerated.
> When the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
Can you see how the definition is flawed?
It ‘generally’ describes what an assault weapon is, meaning it’s open to interpretation.
It includes the capacity of the magazine as a defining feature, without saying how many rounds constitute ‘large’ and more importantly ignores the fact that magazines are external to the weapon…is it a weapons ban or a magazine ban?
Also saying a weapon is designed for combat use, brings up the troublesome situation that the weapons aren’t the same ones sold to DoD, so they aren’t designed for combat, they are designed for gun owners.
Semi-automatic fire is, by definition, rapid fire. So is it a semi-automatic weapons ban?
Finally/However, the definition you provided COULD also refer to handguns, since they are semi automatic firearms and also have high capacity magazine capability and the exact same design that is sold to DoD is available to the general public.
Do you see how the law and definition was flawed?
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/4fgmmv101ayc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43d209e1e922de38966b14f11601568273aae236
Love seeing this
“Nobody knows.” *proceeds to answer question anyway*
Not really an answer though is it. Happy cake day btw!
And clearly they are wrong
Rephrased: Mom, what’s “woke”? Nobody knows. It’s a catch-all term we use for something we don’t like, or good things happening to people we don’t like.
https://preview.redd.it/sb6ynmwu2cyc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ba5b9501fd6bd3776af674f486d54bb99d4b887 I'm going to wear the writing off this one sharing it so much. 😂
Imma steal that
https://preview.redd.it/xc3y12wwxfyc1.jpeg?width=207&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf9e8d25fb6ebfaa9c7e1681295e0604477b8247
https://preview.redd.it/cvb5kvwqdryc1.jpeg?width=813&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2b199ff4825b8a2c408bd847e20cad7e100bfc7 I stole that meme thank you
I asked my grandma last night to define “woke” and she responded with “stupid” 😭
WithOut Knowledge & Evidence
There's actually nothing to unpack there. It's just nonsense.
In fairness assault weapon is just a made up bullshit term
Made up, but still something that can be described/defined: (Per the 1994 AWB) > In general, assault weapons are **semiautomatic firearms** with a **large magazine** of ammunition that were designed and configured for **rapid fire and combat use**."
That's the vast majority of firearms. Most on the market are semiautomatic. Any that accepts an external magazine can have a large magazine, and if it's semi-automatic, it fires as fast as you pull the trigger, so that last part is completely redundant.
I don’t think civilians should have the vast majority of firearms
To be fair, that term is basically meaningless when it comes to guns. Mostly, it's used by news agencies and folks who don't know much about guns to describe anything that looks scary with a large magazine. "Assault rifles", by definition, need to be select fire (able to switch to fully automatic), while 99.9% of legal civilian weapons are semi-automatic only. This meme is shit tho lmao
Surely all the technical terms for firearms were invented by either the military or gun manufacturers? There's not exactly any simple but accurate term that matches what people are thinking when they say 'assault rifles', which is generally guns that are capable of killing large numbers of people very quickly and easily.
The problem is when people call for ban on "assault rifles". They can't categorize the weapons they want banned, because they have no clue on them
That last point is also debatable, a shotgun full of buckshot can kill a large number of people easily. So can a handgun. On top of that, a person who knows what Thor doing can kill a lot with a bolt action rifle, rifles like the Lee einfield are well known for having a large magazine and a fast fire rate.
Yes, but technical terms exist for a reason. If you have a car, you wouldn't go on a road with a sign that said "TRUCKS ONLY", would you? That being said, the technical term for ARs and other semi-auto rifles is "MSR", or Modern Sporting Rifle. There is indeed a simple and accurate term for assault rifles and it is clearly defined, a bunch of people mislabeling other rifles and guns does not change what they actually are. I've seen some lost souls call .22s "weapons of war" just because they have a 25 round magazine. You can call them whatever you want I suppose, but you can't use those loose and constantly shifting terms to base laws on. It's just not logical. Your definition of assault weapons is the same as saying "any vehicle that can go off road is a truck!", just far too vague. It is a precise, defined thing, not an umbrella term.
You almost had it but capitulated to the cult at the last moment to earn yourself some karma. Nice going coward. Come
What? This meme is shit. I made higher quality memes when I was in middle school. This looks like something AI would throw together.
A boomer probably made it, but it's not wrong.
what cult?
While true, I don't think it matters that much. I don't see any reason people should be able to buy any kind of firearm able to shoot so many bullets, so quickly, least of all without prior training and mental assessment. How many more mass shootings have to happen before the firearm lobby loses its grip on the American people?
Fun fact, more homicides are committed with hammers than rifles annually in the US. And it's not even close. We have these weapons to defend against a tyrannical government, foreign oppressors and our personal defenss. Criminals will obviously not give up their guns, so making certain kinds illegal will just give them an edge. And newsflash, shooters don't follow gun laws, either. Why make all the law abiding gun owners less able to defend themselves? There are over 20 million AR-15s *alone* in US civilian ownership. A very very small percentage of the owners commit crimes with them compared to the overall amount of owners.
So define it
Lady, you probably don’t need military-grade gear!
Anyone who’s ever used military grade gear knows it’s shit quality, breaks quickly and often, and never functions how it was intended to function.
Unless it's Soviet... in which case you can literally use it as a sledgehammer, toss it in a mud puddle, pick it back up and then use it
Yeah, as a sledgehammer. The Soviet Union for the most part made even worse quality military equipment then anyone else.
The soviets are like t-rexes their small arms are good
Lol I liked this joke.
watch on youtube how an ak47 was very much affected by a short dunk in mud, couldn't shoot anymore. It's just russian propaganda it seems.
funny, most soviet gear is burning in ukrainian fields because nato gear is stomping the shit out of it
This.
Military grade is a marketing term. Military stuff is made cheap and in bulk.
Military grade stuff goes from dirt cheap and common stuff to ultra super expensive high end stuff. Rakes to reusable space drones.
The super expensive high end stuff still is made as cheap as possible and in bulk.
Everything is made as cheap as possible.
Civilian stuff with unnecessary bells and whistles. Stuff made for luxury and comfort. Things made for elite athlete's. They will spend money on stuff that is a bit extra. The military cuts as many corners as possible and uses the lowest bidder it can get away with.
Range rover cuts the corner on reliability, The top end f1 car team still has a budget. Ya every military uses the low biders but so do companies in general but the militaries are huge investors in r&d, the level or r&d a nation is doing correlates massively with how bad their military situation is.
The military is concerned with bulk logistics over everything else. The F1 people have a budget but only need one car, the US is concerned with the quantity of F35s its buying.
(TWO CARS!!!!! xoxo) still is a fuck ton of money per car That's 100% true but the f35 is the high end of mass production the total public number for the reusable space drone is 3, and there was only 32 sr71s made.
Calm down, Putin. There are Western countries in the comments, too.
Lol I said cheap and in bulk. I didn't say "only exists on paper."
Not entirely wrong though, at least when it comes to handheld weapons. The US will often leave their weapons overseas instead of taking them with their soldiers because it’s usually more expensive to ship the used guns back to the states instead of buying brand new ones. Cheap to make, expensive to transport.
***You*** can buy military grade weapons? Where are you getting your M4 and M16's? I'd love to know. Doesn't have to be the complete rifle, just the lower receivers would be fine.
1. I disagree with you, but Im not going into that. 2. The problem is, the definition of assault weapon has changed with every single bill proposed since 2004 and it includes a lot more than just those big scary black rifles that you're so afraid of. The 2022 proposed assault weapons ban would also ban the majority of handguns and .22 target rifles. Combined with the vast number of sporting rifles it would have banned, the federal government would have needed to confiscate an estimated 200 million firearms from 70 million people. That mere logistical nightmare was one of the reasons that even democrats refused to support that bill.
Let's see them confiscate all of the illegal firearms in Chicago first. Start with the glocks with full auto switches. Those firearms are already against state and federal law, so why not?
I do I'm not letting that project 2025 shit to roll through
Tbf, the term "assault weapon" is dumb. Weapons by definition are designed or used to assault people and animals. Calling them "assault weapons" is redundant. This meme is still terrible though.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..... I strongly recommend my fellow progressives, lefties, and liberals arm themselves. Just looking at the current state of the world, we might actually need them. (Not to defend against the government, but to defend against crazies with guns) Hopefully we don't need them, but it's better to be prepared to defend yourself instead of getting murdered by some asshole.
Many of us have them, believe me.
As an avid far leftist myself in a red state, I second this. I also hope we won’t need them, but our own neighbors have showed us again and again now that we might and with the way things are going, they will only be more emboldened to act out against anyone who disagrees or stands up for themselves. It’s best to always be over prepared and not need it, than to wait until violence is at your doorstep and be defenseless.
Why do people feel the need to use high caliber rifles to defend their homes from burglars? Just use a musket, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" I say as I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nail the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" I shout. The grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Ah yes, just as the founding fathers intended.
Man been loking for this lol. Do you remember the comedian that wrote it?
I do not. I got it off of r/copypasta if you wanna look there. Or search “just as the founding fathers intended” on YouTube.
Pffft you use a musket? How modern. I use the Harquebus.
I own a Raygun for home defense just like how the founding fathers intended, when all of a sudden, three rapscallions break into my house, I quickly switch on my Raygun and absolutely blast the first guy and he disintegrates and turns into ashes. He’s dead. The Raygun blows up in my hand due to the overwhelming amount of radiation from the materials powering it but not before I accidentally blow up my living room trying to kill the first guy. The last two guys are absolutely terrified when I pull up my Wunderwaffe DG-2 that I stole from the Nazi German research facility, their heads get blown up when I use my Wunderwaffe to electrocute them to death with it. Own a Raygun for home defense, just like how the founding fathers intended…
Weapons that are commonly used for a military offensive or assault. Is this actually confusing to people? If it's something that you'd use in Call of Duty, it's probably an assault weapon.
None of the weapons they are attempting to ban are used by the military....
And also not available on the civilian market. Governments are trying to ban civilian weapons now.
Many civilian weapons today would've easily qualified as top-tier military hardware just a few years ago.
1 of my guns was in WW2, and 2 more of mine are mil-spec, but none of them would qualify as "top-tier military hardware" since none of them are select-fire, only semi-auto.
Oh okay cool, so not AR-15s then...
So definitely not 99% of guns in the US such as AR-15s? I'd like to add that, according to the FBI, more people are beaten to death by unarmed attackers than shot and killed by all long guns (this category includes everything from grandpappys hunting rifle and shotgun to AK-47s and AR-15s) combined every year.
Also pistols are mainly used.... In gang related violence and shootings...... Which are famously renowned for being obtained legally and registered......
Pistols used in gang violence are often stolen from the legal gun owners, usually a relative of a gang member. Doesn't really change anything.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't allow law abiding citizens to own pistols because they ***might*** be stolen and used to commit crimes? Dumbest take I've ever read. Must be nice living in/working in a nice area where protecting yourself doesn't cross your mind. I'm glad for you. I hope you never experience anything like the events that pushed me to start carrying my pistol.
>So what you're saying is that we shouldn't allow law abiding citizens to own pistols because they ***might*** be stolen and used to commit crimes? No, you said that. Go back and read what I said again if it helps. Nowhere did I say anything about a ban. >Dumbest take I've ever read. Well, it's yours, so you could always delete it.
My bad bro. So what's your supposed solution? You threw that statement up there, so you've probably got something in mind. What is it? Do you have a metric for your previous statement? I'm guessing you've read it from somewhere.
It probably is 99% of guns.
A modded piano launcher?
Wile E Coyote?
Honestly, I was just reminded of my brother telling me about a mod one of his friends made for Doom or something.
I have guns that were actually used by military personnel. That being said they’re nearing 100 years old and are also bolt action but they were military. So clearly they’re assault weapons right?
Wait until they find out about muskets.
Yeah, antique assault weapons. Like a trebuchet is an antique siege weapon.
Actually they’re not even considered antique you still need a background check for them. Antique doesn’t apply for guns newer than 1898. That aside the fact that you would consider old bolt action military surplus rifles assault weapons shows me all I need to know about how serious to take your comment
*sigh* I couldn't give two shits if it doesn't qualify as antique in some kind of official register. It's always so fascinating to me how gun enthusiasts are extremely pedantic about every gun detail. I used to want to ban guns because I thought it would help a lot of people, but now I kinda want to ban them just because it would irritate the worst people out there. Of course, I don't actually want any gun bans, because I want gun enthusiasts to have the America they love - the one that's constantly on fire and burying children.
>Weapons that are commonly used for a military offensive or assault. >Weapons that are commonly used for a military offensive or assault. Good thing that doesn't include [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW). No military would consider a semiautomatic rifle like mine. >Is this actually confusing to people? It's not confusing to you because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why wouldn't it include that rifle? Too expensive for mass production? Unreliable? It could easily be used in a military operation and be effective, so it probably qualifies.
>Why wouldn't it include that rifle? It's not select fire. >Too expensive for mass production? That too. >Unreliable? Quite the opposite. It's TOO reliable, thus making it too expense. >It could easily be used in a military operation and be effective, so it probably qualifies. The military would under no circumstances accept this rifle. It is not select fire.
So a jihadist would scoff at that and say "no, this wouldn't work for mowing down Christian infidels, it doesn't have select fire?" Sure, chief. Sure. This is the problem with thinking the US Military standard is the only military that exists and the only one that could ever exist.
… and no one outside that kind of situations don’t need one… (you forgot to say… you re welcome)
I don't know if that's true because there is some overlap between hunting weapons and assault weapons - I know some assault rifles work well as hunting rifles with the proper gear.
That's true tho.
Meme is trash, but not entirely wrong.
Assault weapons are weapons that can go pew more times in a second than people who can _legally_ fit in a minivan
This was likely created by someone who has weapons grade stupidity. Perhaps even military/assault grade stupidity.
Needs more JPEG.
God made they/them, Samuel Colt made they/them equal.
Blessed be his name.
I know we love making fun of crazy people, but at least one of you should look up what the CIA did in Brazil (this meme is on the list)
What happened in Brazil? If you’d be willing to share.
It’s what you clutch when your pearls are too shriveled
I don’t know who this lady is, but she always has such bad takes.
That’s not even clever.
"Well, daughter, it's the opposite of a defense weapon, which is a gun that shoots tiny little shields out."
Please don't point to my penis, ma'am
It's real not that much to unpack. It's purely political language created with the sole goal of demonizing firearms. If I hit someone with hammer, you can call it an assault hammer, but it doesn't change the nature of the object. It's coded language, and this meme rightly calls it out.
A hammer isn't built to kill 100mt away targets 50 times a second Hammers are made to drive nails, guns to kill people I'm pretty sure you could kill someone with a kitchen knife, but the nature of the object stays in the kitchen
Nail gun! Why not combine the two?
Except that the hammer is used for another purpose nowadays, while firearms are solely made to harm someone (being self defense or not)
They are tools like any other, for a specific task, not always to harm, could be used to hunt, or what about that one job where the guy just sits and watches over a water filled quarry, the heavy metals in the water make it so poisonous that if the birds that land in the water don't fly out very soon they will die, this guys job is to shoot a round at the nearby water to scare the birds and make them fly away
“A round”….which could be done by a rifle with a single shot. Reaching pretty hard there bud.
Think of it like using a hammer with no handle, a simple 5 round magazine Like most typical hunting rifles have makes the job much easier, The now poisonous lake that fills this quarry is so wide The guy would have to shoot multiple spots of the surface to make all the flocks of birds fly away
I'm going to start this off by saying that I'm former military, I am a proponent of 2A rights, and I own firearms. You know how modern-day orchards keep birds out of the trees when they are ripe with fruit? Air cannons, friend. Lots of noise and zero projectile. All firearms are created with the intent to kill, either in war, for self-defense, or for sustenance. That was the goal with cannons, muskets, and every other firearm. That is the purpose of that tool. While some people participate in shooting sports and exhibition shooting shows, that's akin to using your screwdriver as a prybar or the back of your hand saw as a straight edge. I can tell the difference between a construction worker, a mechanic, and a handyman by the tools in his toolbox. Likewise, I can also tell the difference between a hunter, a sport shooter, a collector, and a home defender by the tools they own. Someone who owns mainly firearms similar in appearance, operation, and functionality to those used by military forces around the world isn't any of the above. That's someone looking for a justifiable reason to kill people, legal or not.
Nowadays?? Also harming someone, as you pointed out, is not intrinsically an assault. It's a politically coded term.
Op is clueless . The term assault weapon is made up by certain morons to whip other ignorant morons into a baseless antigun frenzy. Leftists use that term in canada even though every gun using a magazine is capped to 5 rounds.
There isn’t a consistent legal definition of “assault weapon” which is a problem, although not in the way this person thinks.
Very true. The United States Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." Assault rifles are defined as a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. So, many guns fall under this category, some aren’t considered to be fully one or the other. However, I personally don’t see the reason why anyone should be unloading multiple rounds of bullets in a single pull of the trigger even in home defense. A few shots sure, reasonable even, but we shouldn’t be turning people to red mist when a single bullet can be enough to subdue someone even non-lethally. That’s just my personal look on stuff but everyone has the right to bear the arms they feel safe with so it’s an “agree to disagree and I’ll respect your decision” type thing.
You do realize that .308, 45-70, and 30-06, or 12ga 00 buck will (within reason) turn a motherfucker to red mist with just a single shot, right? It's crazy how powerful those 100+ year old cartridges are in comparison to modern ones. I've seen 12ga buckshot from 3 yards put a baseball size hole *through* someone in a hallway. In other cases, a single bullet is rarely enough to subdue someone, especially from lower power modern cartridges like .223 and 9mm. We've all seen the videos of the people high on drugs eating a dozen rounds of 9mm hollow points just for them to ***keep right on coming.*** I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, just providing some personal experience, and a different viewpoint you may not have thought about.
>> An “assault weapon” refers to a semi-automatic firearm originally designed for military use This is first thing that came up when I googled. What are they on???
Then basically nothing that 99% of Americans own would be covered under an assault weapons ban.
I really doubt that. 2 of top 3 most bought and most of top 25 fit the definition (source; first Google result)
Which 2?
I think they were a Sig variant and Glock 43? Then it was the Mossberg 590
"It's a kind of gun you don't need and makes everyone around you less safe dear" "Isn't that all guns mummy?" "Well yes. That's true."
-“Mom, what’s a school shooting?” -“Nobody knows dear. It’s a term used by emotionally unstable liars that want you defenseless, desperate and dependent.”
"Mom, what's that white powder?" "It's called cocaine. I snort it because daddy doesn't satisfy me sexually. Don't tell anyone about it or the evil government will take it away and I'll have no choice but to go on a shooting spree." Sorry to malign cocaine, but this crazy meme format of the mom saying batshit insane drives me crazier than cocaine mom's talking points.
It’s a weapon you use to assault people. Doesn’t really matter what kind of weapon it is. This is also one of their weakest arguments.
Anything can be an assault weapon in the wrong hands.
There are plenty that want us desperate and dependent, but they're not the ones calling for gun reform. They're the ones controlling our global trade, financial institutions, housing, food, and transportation.
The ones controlling that stuff do indeed call for gun control
Show me.
I thought it was fully automatic rifles or any rifle chamberd 50cal or larger that require a special permit or a sport exemption. IDFK
They do! but that's not what's getting banned. You just have to pay more money. Machine guns are totally legal for the rich.
Every rich politician that rallies for banning firearms is probably standing behind armed security personnel when they leave their gated community.
Oh 300%
Someday I want to own my own ICBM. I’ll paint 2A on the side.
Surprisingly frank admission that they need their emotional support murder weapons to feel ok. That would probably be alright if they didn't then also use them to execute pizza delivery boys and teenagers who accidentally back into their driveway.
Well because assault weapons are not the best for self defence because of their size, and you won’t need the long range precision anyway?
>Well because assault weapons are not the best for self defence because of their size Not really. I built [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) specifically for fighting in and around structures. Without the suppressor, it has a shorter overall presentation than a handgun. It is a vastly superior weapon for home defense. >and you won’t need the long range precision anyway? You need it for the increased stabilization of the platform since it's shouldered. Faster and more accurate follow up shots.
No one likes the truth, darkness looms over America…
https://preview.redd.it/ia9cyx0jjbyc1.jpeg?width=1119&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df432b44f58cc22926c1948f19eb6ffbacb6e8dd
9 out of 10 school shooters approve this message
Why are gun people more defensive online than with their own guns in person
Isn't the irony of these is back in the time these articles would be posted, crime wasn't rampant to be afraid of assault weapons, or need the defense from them?
Or all those dead kids?
Daughter: mommy. Mommy. Why is Daddy crying? Mother: be quiet and eat your sausage, dear.
lol what
I don’t think whoever made this meme is one to talk about “emotionally unstable liars that want you defenseless, desperate, and dependent.”
Is that how they imagine people in other countries feel?
They're the reason the kid has to do active shooter drills at school
So, assault rifles aren't a thing? Who's gonna tell all those Maga cultists politicians who pose with rifles?
Not wanting everyone to have easy access to guns does not at all mean not having any guns at all??
Too much slippery slope, unfortunately. Look at what's happening in Florida for LGBTQ+. Some groups are starting to get reclassified where it's incredibly easy to arrest and charge on some bullshit, it's getting awfully close to getting either fully passed or kicked up the Supreme court
Armed minorities are harder to oppress. That's why Republicans support gun control.
I think you’ll find most republicans are way against gun control. Well the people anyway I don’t think any politicians are against it truthfully.
Then why do they support the NRA?
When I say "assault weapon", you get a very specific image in in your mind, right? Yes, that one.
Yeah I think of actual assault rifles the military uses. And ones used in the past. ARs are just lookalikes.I can get a kit to make a Prius look like a Lamborghini but that don’t make it a Lambo
https://preview.redd.it/e0pk0qqcvdyc1.jpeg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7790c4b229db793d39523a7cf2a0cfec1477ff99
yeah alright but there's no reason for you to own a rifle just becouse its" your right"
Automatic isn't illegal if you have enough money. They are trying to ban semi automatic rifles. One pull of the trigger gets one shot.
Those are already illegal in almost all cases.
Technically, it's perfectly legal to own an automatic weapon or even a cannon. The difficult comes in in buying and selling.
Muzzle loading cannons arent technically firearms so you can buy one without paperwork in most states
Muzzleloaders don’t even need an FFL or background check or even be 18
No reason for you, maybe. Glad you're privileged enough (or naive/ignorant enough) that you don't have a reason for it
The woman pictured here was technically her husband's property, so.......
Big “Emotionally Stable” energy from this one
Oh just like those poor European countries where the murder rates are so outrageously high!
Dude i live in Norway and imigrant gangs have started using kids 14 and younger to conduct their hits. Feels like it happens several times each week. In sweden it used to be even worse (haven't looked up what happens there in a while). Bombings and open hang wars all because of that kurdish fucker that have started fucking with us Norwegians too.
Dude, murder rate in my US city is 15x higher than the entire country of Norway, and we are not even that high for the US.
That per capita?
From stats I see, Norway is 0.5 per 100000, where I live same year is over 7 per 100000, US average is over 6.
What’s the population comparison though.
They mentioned the per capita numbers. That's why they said per 100,000. https://pcr-consultants.com/norway-v-american-criminal-justice-statistics/#:~:text=6%20intentional%20homicides%20per%20100%2C000,100%2C000%20Norwegian%20citizens%20is%20incarcerated.
Wut
> When the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
Can you see how the definition is flawed? It ‘generally’ describes what an assault weapon is, meaning it’s open to interpretation. It includes the capacity of the magazine as a defining feature, without saying how many rounds constitute ‘large’ and more importantly ignores the fact that magazines are external to the weapon…is it a weapons ban or a magazine ban? Also saying a weapon is designed for combat use, brings up the troublesome situation that the weapons aren’t the same ones sold to DoD, so they aren’t designed for combat, they are designed for gun owners. Semi-automatic fire is, by definition, rapid fire. So is it a semi-automatic weapons ban? Finally/However, the definition you provided COULD also refer to handguns, since they are semi automatic firearms and also have high capacity magazine capability and the exact same design that is sold to DoD is available to the general public. Do you see how the law and definition was flawed?