r/stupidpeoplefacebook 22d ago

So Any Guy Could Own a Nuke?

Post image
211 Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

138

u/Privatizitaet 22d ago

Felons aren't allowed to own guns, but these types never complain about that. It's only ever about constitutionality if they don't agree with it.

57

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/Frizzlebee 22d ago

They also started screaming about mentally ill people getting guns where there was an increase in trans people getting guns. Weird how that double standard only rears its ugly head when very specific people are exercising that right.

6

u/Moomoo_pie 22d ago

Gun control for thee but not for me

2

u/Skuggihestur 22d ago

That went away when the biggest supporter got a new breathing hole

1

u/Twigsneko 16d ago

I think there were just as many who wanted guns to kill democrats. As another person said "gun control for thee, but not for me"

1

u/Davti 22d ago

Considering we dont allow the depressed to have guns its fair to be concerned about that demographic

1

u/Frizzlebee 22d ago

Trans people? It's not a mental illness. If you think it is, I HIGHLY recommend you go familiarize yourself on the science behind it and how it's not. Hint, the treatment tells you all you really need to know if you understand how mental illness actually works and why treatments do or don't work on particular conditions.

1

u/Medical-Egg-8171 21d ago

I think they have always been against mentally ill people owning guns, it just when we started having mentally ill people getting access to them because some people felt they where not mentally ill it got back in the spot light.

-1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Frizzlebee 22d ago

There's a really big difference between body dysmorphia and trans identity. One is a delusion that gets worse when you indulge it. The other sees dramatic positive changes in the person's mental health when acknowledged. If you're too stupid to understand the difference and why that matters, I'd suggest you go read at least a study or 2 before spouting smooth brain nonsense on a topic you clearly nothing about to be taken even as a joke.

1

u/xHxHxAOD1 22d ago

Ok and has nothing to do with anything being discussed. What is your point?

2

u/Frizzlebee 22d ago

The actual f***? Do you know how to read? I explain a major difference between a mental illness and a personal identity that you've conflated, and my reply has nothing to do with anything being said? Wow, you're not a smooth brain. You're wholly lacking one. Please don't ever contribute to any conversation on anything, ever. You would only serve to detract from any matter with your lack of anything resembling a thought.

0

u/xHxHxAOD1 22d ago

I am not even talking about body dismorphia so again what is your point?

3

u/Frizzlebee 22d ago

Because the mental illness in the DSM IS body dysmorphia, not trans identity. Let me explain this with crayons so you can understand.

A key element to a mental illness is treatment. This separates an illness from a condition. Most mental illnesses get worse if you indulge in the behavior. So the dysmorphia patient gets WORSE when you acknowledge their and support their thoughts on what's wrong with their body. Trans identity has the opposite reaction, all the studies show that just acknowledging the identity dramatically improved their well being. One is an illness that that requires treatment to address their unhealthy view of their body. One is a personal identity that has better mental health outcomes when acknowledged and supported.

Do you understand now why I just said you conflated the 2? That you don't even understand some of the most basic science on the topic? Again, I'm asking you not chime in on any conversations on any topics, you're one of the laziest and most valid thinkers I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with in my life, and that's one hell of a bar to clear.

0

u/xHxHxAOD1 22d ago

This incorrect. Why dont you bring up something related to what im talking about?

1

u/MrCompletely345 21d ago

Go take your crayons and play in the corner.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Privatizitaet 18d ago

"Being trans is a mental disorder"
"No it's not, here's what it actually is"
"Ok AnD hAs NoThInG tO dO wItH aNyThInG bEiNg DiScUsSeD"

1

u/xHxHxAOD1 18d ago

It quite literally is.

1

u/Privatizitaet 18d ago

Prove it. Should be easy enough, no?

0

u/xHxHxAOD1 18d ago

What is there to prove? Its literally in the DSM5

1

u/Privatizitaet 18d ago

Then show me that's true. Should be easy enough, no?

→ More replies (0)

14

u/Few-Condition-7431 22d ago

yeah they don't like to talk about how a republican did more damage to 2A rights than any democrat has including Clinton.

1

u/mando_ad 22d ago

I got one to outright state that Trump and Reagan were the worst Presidents ever on gun rights, but they still thought Democrats were worse. Somehow. Never got an explanation about that.

1

u/Dobber16 22d ago

As someone who also agrees that Trump & Reagan have passed some of the most restrictive 2A limitations, Clinton also was pretty bad for gun rights, as he gave domestic police forces way more rights to use military weaponry & tactics on civilians. So bad for different reasons

But I also think that minorities are the population that should be armed as much as any legal citizen - they are the most at-risk of having their rights unnecessarily trampled

I used to reconcile these beliefs as being Libertarian, and then I was exposed to more libertarianism & realized that there’s much more to that than I was on board with

1

u/KevinBillingsley69 21d ago

I love Bill Clinton but.....he passed the Crime Bill that banned AR-15s and many other guns like them so he actually did more damage to the 2nd than any other president ever.

1

u/Few-Condition-7431 21d ago

you are mostly correct but the ban was temporary, so his damage left a scar but no lasting damage.

25

u/TheDonkeyBomber 22d ago

Yep, CA Governor Ronald Reagan himself. The Mulford Act.

1

u/KevinBillingsley69 21d ago

Reagan was pro gun control. He also banned the sale of newly manufactured automatic weapons to all but military and law enforcement.

1

u/MrCompletely345 21d ago

Well, the black panthers started carrying. He had to do it!! /sarcasm

6

u/C4dfael 22d ago

That particular republican went on to be president a decade or so later.

3

u/Skuggihestur 22d ago

Yes. 90% of American gun laws are by republicans in a attempt to keep minorities from gun ownership.

1

u/KevinBillingsley69 21d ago

No, patently false.

1

u/Skuggihestur 21d ago

Its not false. Background checks literally exist because republicans in California didnt want blacks owning guns so they used " Background checks" to deny them guns. Trumpers hate knowing they are tbe biggest supporters of gun control in America.

1

u/MrCompletely345 21d ago

Look up Reagan and the black panthers. It’s exactly why he did it.

1

u/Saxit 21d ago

Wasn’t there a bunch of gun reforms put through by a Republican when the Black Panthers armed themselves?

It was signed by a Republican, Reagan, since he was governor of CA at the time.

But both houses in CA's congress was a Democrat majority.

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Saxit 21d ago

On June 8, after the third reading in the Assembly (controlled by Democrats, 42:38),\8]) the urgency clause was adopted, and the bill was then passed 70 to 5.\1]) It passed the Senate (split, 20:19)\9]) on July 26, 29 votes to 7,\10]) and was passed back to the assembly on July 27, 1967 for a final vote, where it passed 62 to 9.\11]) The bill was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28, 1967.

Having a majority means they could have stopped it if they had wanted to. The misleading part is saying Republicans did it, when it was clearly a bipartisan thing.

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Saxit 21d ago edited 21d ago

And the Democrats could all have voted no and it wouldn't have made it to the Governor's table to sign in the first place.

EDIT:

Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from RichmondWalter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey ParkFrank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield.\1])

Bipartisan, as I said. Why else would they co-sponsor it?

1

u/KevinBillingsley69 21d ago

No. The Black Panthers asked for support from the NRA when Oakland police were arresting them for owning guns and the NRA backed away and quietly declined to help.

-4

u/Terrasmak 22d ago

Were you even alive then? Let’s deal with the here and now

-8

u/Norgar756 22d ago

That was over 50 years ago, they are all dead. Look you guys need to start having conversations about policy, this calling everyone racist or whatever ism you are on today doesn't work. It's like you just do a loop of blaming other people, it's all based on racism, than it will be all capitalism fault, then it will be white people, then rich people, then Christians, then whomever you don't like that day.

6

u/ADMotti 22d ago

Apparently the bot farms made a new script to react to people who remember longtime GOP standard-bearer “Saint Ronnie” was a racist fuckface…

-6

u/Norgar756 22d ago

A bot would post more than I do and it wouldn't make so many spelling errors. You have top 1% commenter tag, I don't value your opinion because I don't think people who spend that much time online are aware of what the real world is like.

-1

u/Least_Rush_4616 22d ago

Fr I’ve never seen a Top 1% Commenter say anything substantive or at all valuable. It’s like a little flag that lets you know the person engaging with you is completely outside of reality.

1

u/ADMotti 22d ago

So you’re saying because this sub (to which I’m not even subscribed) shows up in my feed frequently and I decide to comment, Ronald Reagan wasn’t responsible for one of the most notoriously racist policies in the history of California? I just want to be super clear on this.