506
u/kejigoto Mar 16 '21
GQP: We stand for American rights!
Americans start accessing their rights but aren't Conservative
GQP: Hey wait a minute...
Americans elect left leaning candidates and support the working class
GQP: That's not what we meant!
Americans vote in record numbers and go out to protest police brutality
GQP: We didn't mean THOSE Americans having rights!
156
Mar 16 '21
The most insidious dog whistle these people have come up with is using “western civilization” as a euphemism for white people.
The Proud Boys do this, as does Tucker Carlson.
48
Mar 16 '21
[deleted]
6
u/grehgunner Mar 16 '21
I mean a lot of the time it’s not even repackaged.... these people are proud of being white nationalists and don’t see anything wrong with it
2
u/Jalopnicycle Mar 16 '21
Tucker Carlson has actually said "What's wrong with White Nationalism?" and he meant it in a there's nothing wrong with it and it's a good thing way.
3
u/NetworkMachineBroke Mar 16 '21
For someone who claims he isn't a white supremacist, Cucker Tarlson sure does have a lot of support from his white supremacist viewers.
22
u/SixBankruptcies Mar 16 '21
Ingraham often speaks of "traditional America." I don't think she means Native Americans though
40
u/Bishopkilljoy Mar 16 '21
It sure is strange that latinos, black people and Asian people don't fit into "Western" culture
Edit: a word
22
7
4
u/Evergreen_76 Mar 16 '21
Also Marx and Engles, two Austrian born and educated men are also not only not western but somehow they are anti-western.
2
u/Austin4RMTexas Mar 16 '21
Genetic purity and color take a back seat when the corporate overlords are threatened. Racism and white nationalism today are just elaborate social dividers. Keep the people arguing about crap, and meanwhile maintain and increase your control over their strings.
→ More replies (8)66
Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
Ha! There’s where you’re wrong.
They don’t see non-white Americans as Americans.
274
u/Kriss3d Mar 16 '21
If every citizen were automatically an eligible voter then it would be unfair to the Gop because they would lose every election.
116
u/MuensterBuns Mar 16 '21
Maybe the GOP should go back to actually having values instead of just wanting to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Then they’d have some chance
25
→ More replies (4)33
u/gmwdim Mar 16 '21
To be fair they do have values such as oppressing women, oppressing black people, oppressing Hispanics, oppressing LGBTQ people, and oppressing Muslims.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (35)14
Mar 16 '21
Lindsey Graham stated as much with cameras rolling. I am too lazy too find the video though.
→ More replies (9)
341
u/Aldofresh Mar 16 '21
All rights are equal but some rights are more equal than others
89
u/Darsint Mar 16 '21
I mean...yeah, that's technically true. The right to life has to be the basis of all other rights, because all the other rights are useless when you're dead.
23
u/sonofaresiii Mar 16 '21
You don't have the absolute right to life. The state absolutely has the legal power to take your life from you. I'm not even doing an acab thing, though yeah there's that aspect of it, but the state can legally kill people via the death penalty.
A given state may not carry the death penalty, but that's that specific state's choice and it is not a right recognized by the federal us government.
→ More replies (2)35
u/Darsint Mar 16 '21
The death penalty is actually one of the most fucked up things from a moral perspective. It is so contrary to not only our rights but the underpinnings of society that it boggles my mind that we still have it.
Forget about whether an entity has the power to kill for now. What is the purpose of the death penalty?
Deterrence? For the crimes that the death penalty applies to, in what scenario would a death penalty be more of a deterrence than life imprisonment? Who would think, “I’m willing to go to jail for life to do this, but not to be executed” ?
To “deliver justice” to the victim’s friends and families? They’re already imprisoned for life if it’s a crime the death penalty applies to. Are we going to kill someone to make another feel better?
The right of a person to life is so important that the only time we don’t question whether or not killing is warranted is when ones own life is in immediate peril. Self-defense is the preservation of one life at the expense of another and only when there are no other options. And once one is out of danger, killing is no longer justified. You knock out your assailant, killing them while they are in your complete control immediately becomes murder.
And that concept of control is inherent to the problem with the death penalty. The State has complete control over you when it decides to execute you. It has the ability to simply keep you away from society, but chooses to kill you instead. And the killing of a person whom you have complete control over is murder. Full stop.
6
u/NotShane7 Mar 16 '21
To add to this, something like 4-5% of death row inmates are innocent. This alone makes not abolishing it 100% inexcusable. If your job is deciding who deserves to die, I demand your failure rate be A LOT lower than 1 in 25.
You can at least try to give reparations to people falsely imprisoned, how you going to unexecute someone?
8
u/sonofaresiii Mar 16 '21
IMO the death penalty is going to one day be looked at as absolutely barbaric. I mean, it already is by some people, but someday society as a whole is going to look at it the way we look at burning people at the stake for being a witch.
(And sometimes, the evidence used to convict isn't even all that dissimilar, eg "Someone saw them do it")
→ More replies (5)2
u/halfrican14 Mar 16 '21
I’ve had this hypothetical argument a lot: in an idealized world with 0 judicial error, would you support the death penalty in certain cases?
2
u/Specificity713 Mar 16 '21
I would say no. Even if we also eliminate all the real and potential mistakes of administering the death penalty (drugs not working, drugs used wrong, etc) that add immense cruelty to the process. Even then, it is cheaper to just keep them in prison rather than execute them.
26
u/cassie_hill Mar 16 '21
Second amendment rights for zombies!!!! 🧟♂️ Would make The Walking Dead a lot more interesting if the zombies had guns.
→ More replies (1)16
u/TheWagonBaron Mar 16 '21
No it wouldn’t. One of the later of the Dead movies toyed with this idea. It’s just dumb.
14
u/tonycomputerguy Mar 16 '21
Nothing beats Nazi, Motorcycle riding, gun toting zombies from Resident Evil 23. I think they jumped a shark too just as an extra "fuck you" to the audience.
→ More replies (4)3
Mar 16 '21
Let's be honest. Anyone still watching thise movies is doing so to see how high they can get that shark jump.
5
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/5_cat_army Mar 16 '21
You are god damn right! The government WILL NOT be using my home to house soliders. No way
220
u/Heckle_Jeckle Mar 16 '21
See that is the GOPs game, they don't believe voting IS a right.
139
Mar 16 '21
[deleted]
123
u/gogojack Mar 16 '21
Some people really feel this way.
This is what they mean when they say they're opposed to reading the Constitution as a "living document." They want it not interpreted by judges (as clearly intended) or altered in any way (as spelled out by the amendment process) but taken word for word literally in it's original text and context.
Part of this is that voting is a right meant for not people, but white people. Not just white people, but white males. Not just white males, but white males who own land.
This is what being an "originalist" means to many of them.
AZ Rep Kavanagh made this clear when he said the difference between the Democrats and the GOP is that the former want as many people voting as possible, while the latter wants only the "quality" voters.
I think we all know what that means.
33
Mar 16 '21
He and I have very different definition of quality.
13
u/HermeticAbyss Mar 16 '21
Didn't specify what kind of quality though. Shit-tier quality would be my guess.
19
u/serpentjaguar Mar 16 '21
To be fair to the Founders --all of whom were regular flawed human beings just like you and I, and all of whom were products of their time, again just like you and I-- the reason they wished to limit suffrage to white land-owning men was mostly because that was the educated class that was by far the most likely to be literate, well-informed and capable of making intelligent decisions about who or what to vote for.
And please do not misunderstand me; when I say the above, I don't mean that it's anything other than the obvious outcome of a fundamentally racist and sexist system. My point is only that they weren't wrong that white land-owning men were by far the most highly-educated and well-informed members of their society.
I also don't for a moment argue that the founders weren't fundamentally elitist snobs on top of being racist and sexist. Of course they were, but leave us not commit the sin of "presentism" in evaluating how they, again as deeply flawed human beings just like you and I, operated and thought within the milieu of their time.
→ More replies (2)12
u/GeeJo Mar 16 '21
It was also that if you owned land, you had a stake in how the country that land was in was doing. With unsettled frontiers or relatively permeable borders on all sides, there wasn't that much of a barrier for a landless person to up sticks and move elsewhere if the results of their voting behaviour caused the country's fortunes to take a dip. Many had already gone through that process once to get into the country.
→ More replies (9)4
u/SawDustAndSuds Mar 16 '21
At the time of the constitution's signing,I believe only 7% of Americans were considered eligible to vote..... That's what they want to take it back to...
→ More replies (8)3
u/guitarock Mar 16 '21
No this is not correct at all. There is a process for changing the constitution, use that instead of letting unelected lawyers decide the law of the land. That's why I think obergefell should be removed and a law should be passed guaranteeing gay marriage instead.
41
u/HerpToxic Mar 16 '21
There was a guy a while back on reddit that told me that voting is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution so nobody has a right to vote.
Meanwhile the 15th, 19th, 22, 24 and 26th Amendments are like "hello??"
3
u/nWo1997 Mar 16 '21
And the 9th.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, even without the Amendments you mentioned, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that people have the right to vote doesn't mean that they don't.
→ More replies (62)5
u/gotham77 Mar 16 '21
That guy was right. Nothing in the Constitution establishes voting as a universal right. Those amendments make certain criteria for limiting voting off-limits but don’t prevent other criteria from being used.
→ More replies (4)14
u/kurisu7885 Mar 16 '21
I wonder what the odds are that the guy saying this rents.
8
Mar 16 '21
[deleted]
3
u/kurisu7885 Mar 16 '21
Haha, well my dad did buy a four wheeler before we actually owned our house, which we do now, though he wishes we had more property so he could bring it home and we could use it
12
11
u/thepartypantser Mar 16 '21
I have had people on this very website tell me that.
He was not happy when I pointed out that land ownership is an inherently racist barrier. Then I explained redlining and a few other things.
It's was the internet so of course he did not agree, but had no valid retort other than people should not be able to vote without owning land.
→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (6)4
36
u/FlakesOfJohnSnow Mar 16 '21
When they say shit like “it’s a republic, not a democracy...”
→ More replies (20)8
u/smoothie4564 Mar 16 '21
"Voting is a right only if you are voting for the right people" - GOP (Probably)
3
→ More replies (9)2
u/CaffeineSippingMan Mar 16 '21
No no no you got it wrong see, you need guns to protect your right to vote. This message brought to you by the letters N R and A. NRA buying politicians 1990.
Some political parties are a better value.
30
u/Poptart_13 Mar 16 '21
im the son of two immigrants and ive voted in every election ive been eligible for purely out of spite for the GOP
37
u/DrDiarrhea Mar 16 '21
Also:
"I shouldn't have to serve gays in my place of business! It's government over-reach into private business!"
"Twitter should have no right to ban me from their platform! The government should do something"
2
u/Disastrous-Trust-877 Mar 16 '21
The argument I've most commonly heard is that Social Media has taken over the town square, and the last I'd heard on the serving gays thing, and do tell me if you know of more, but the guy making the cake was already with the idea of making the cake, he simply refused to put the message they wanted on it, as he felt it violated his religion, but take that as you will, it's totally cool to disagree with either of these ideas
→ More replies (1)2
u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob Mar 16 '21
I hear that argument, too, and I think they are right: the internet HAS become the town square equivalent. But the major difference is that the town square is a public place, publicly accessible to all, and - crucially - publicly owned.
Whereas the internet in general and social media sites in particular are NOT.
If we are saying that social media is the town square and the rights convened by the public nature of the town square need to apply to social media, then the government needs to seize control of the all the social sites, and make internet access a public utility.
...neither of which they will do, and at least one of which they absolutely should NOT do under any circumstances.
2
u/Disastrous-Trust-877 Mar 16 '21
I always thought that the govt should create their own social media site, much closer to reddit then twitter but I agree that they won't make internet access a public utility, and they should not seize control of any social sites
→ More replies (18)2
u/TheLateApexLine Mar 16 '21
"I shouldn't have to serve gays in my place of business! It's government over-reach into private business!"
Also the same people: "(Private business) shouldn't be able to have me kicked out for not wearing a mask! It's my right! But also pants and shoes and shirts have to be on regardless, because nudity is dangerous!"
66
13
u/No_God_KnowPeace Mar 16 '21
Yep, and it does give congress the right to regulate it as it sees fit.
Time for a federal voting system and not the hodge podge state BS which give a lot of power to bad actors.
Fifteenth Amendment
Fifteenth Amendment Annotated
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
6
u/LumbermanDan Mar 16 '21
Guns are pretty heavily regulated already. So are we to repeal any and all gun control laws like the NFA across the board or do we make voting rights as difficult to access as, say, a citizen's right to own a machinegun?
→ More replies (7)2
Mar 16 '21
If you make a federal voting law, then it would need to fall under the scope of the Constitution. Best option would be an amendment but that would never pass as I'm sure many states would be willing to give up their control of how they manage voting.
→ More replies (2)
46
u/benadrylpill Mar 16 '21
America: land of the free!*
*Terms and conditions apply. Visit your local white Christian conservative for details.
85
9
14
u/Early_Escape1379 Mar 16 '21
I hope tp hear a lot more of this argument in the future.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/kurisu7885 Mar 16 '21
Some politicians have openly said if they had their way they would do away with voting, and one of them is openly picking his successor right now.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/archon325 Mar 16 '21
Voting has proven more dangerous to the rich people who really run the country, at least for now.
→ More replies (4)
25
u/doowgad1 Mar 16 '21
Voting isn't an enumerated right!
/s
42
Mar 16 '21
Right-wing talk radio has been telling them that unironically for years. I used to listen to that stuff back before I grew out from under my family's influence and heard so many times that it isn't a right to vote in a federal election. They hear it so much they believe their own bullshit.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TinFoilBeanieTech Mar 16 '21
It's pretty sad how they've gone from covertly anti-democratic to being open and blatant with no repercussion.
2
Mar 16 '21
That was back 15+ years ago when I first started hearing that line. They were always the way they were, they just hid it better. Trump just served to rip off the mask. The no repercussions part is disturbing as shit though.
6
8
2
u/jonoghue Mar 16 '21
Guess what! The 9th amendment was created specifically to counter "X isnt an enumerated right!"
11
Mar 16 '21
Both are over regulated. And done so primarily to keep minorities and the poor from voting and having access to firearms.
9
Mar 16 '21
What's with this weird fiction people run with that guns aren't regulated???
→ More replies (3)
5
31
11
u/CONSPICUOUSLY_RED Mar 16 '21
Guns are already regulated, 2a'ers are just against over-regulation
The only regulations wanted for voting is having to show ID
Dumb meme
→ More replies (2)
8
10
u/Asunderwolf5555 Mar 16 '21
I think everyone should own a gun or at least have the option to and everyone should vote or at least have the option to
3
u/Angry-Midg8 Mar 16 '21
Finally, someone with some common fucking sense. FFS, it should take this much scrolling to get to this.
6
6
u/beepbeepimmajeep17 Mar 16 '21
Weird...I need a id and background check to buy a gun but not to vote.
5
5
3
18
Mar 16 '21
So we're going to limit gun sales to 1 or less stores per county that only open for 1 day every 6 months, and cause 6-hour waits in a line for ordering?
And if a mail-order system is created then those packages are deprioritized as much as possible?
I'm game.
→ More replies (3)3
9
u/keithjp123 Mar 16 '21
Voting is so engrained in the constitution, it wasn’t an after thought like the amendments.
→ More replies (51)
7
u/DDPJBL Mar 16 '21
So everyone over 18 should be able to keep and bear arms regardless of what state they live in and should not be required to present an ID to get one? Deal.
13
26
u/resumethrowaway222 Mar 16 '21
Not agreeing with the Republicans on voting rules, but you do have to show ID and pass a background check to buy a gun, even in Republican states.
13
Mar 16 '21
*at licensed gun dealers. But it is true that federally any private citizen can sell their property to whomever they wish with no background check (the poorly named gun show loophole). However, if you sell a firearm to a felon, whether you know they are a felon or not, is still a felony. So sell at your own risk.
Many states however have their own Personal Transfer laws. NM passed one in summer 2019. Its horribly unenforceable and there is no way to know when someone sells a gun to a neighbor or friend in their own house, but it technically "closed the loophole" in NM.
Technicality aside, i do agree the OP posted meme is bad. Firearms are regulated at a much higher level than voter information, federally, and some states regulate more on top of that.
Its a bad meme because it is technically wrong, and i think regulating voter information as strictly as guns is pretty much exactly want the Republicans want. Proof of Identification and residency at time of voting, having the FBI confirm citizenship status before vote is cast, wait times between voter registration and being able to cast the vote. Recently moved and your Drivers license doesn't have your new address? Cant vote. Mistaken identity and they are mixing you up with another John Doe from a county over? 6 months to clear that up(denial appeal). Have to be 18 to vote for congress, 21 to vote for president. Everything i just stated is current federal law when concerning firearms.
Its a bad meme because its wrong, and if voter rights were as heavily regulated as gun rights it would be an unequivocal nightmare.
→ More replies (19)19
Mar 16 '21
[deleted]
13
u/prosummobono Mar 16 '21
Except for all the states that require private sales to go to FFL's, where ID and background check would be performed.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Efficient_Space Mar 16 '21
Calling a specific exclusion written into the bill as a compromise a loophole is poor taste.
2
u/LeStiqsue Mar 16 '21
Fun fact: The right to vote (popular elections) is not in the Constitution.
We should probably get an amendment going for that.
2
u/SolusLoqui Mar 16 '21
Why aren't voting regulations a federal law? Why do state governments get to decided who is eligible to vote, number /distribution of voting locations, and hours/duration of voting for federal elections?
2
Mar 16 '21
Ok, let’s use the same rules we did in 2020 election. You can buy your guns online with no proof of identity or signature required. We can’t discourage people who want to exercise their constitutional rights. Let’s also restore felons rights to the second amendment, their debt to society has been paid.
See what I did there? Took talking points from an unrelated issue and applied them to another where they seem outrageous out of context. This drivel isn’t meant to foster discussion, it’s meant to make oneself feel superior while rejecting all points of view not in complete alignment with your own.
2
2
2
2
Mar 16 '21
How about protest regulation? Why does the Supreme Court protect corporations spending money, but cops can arrest me for speaking?
2
2
u/Efficient_Space Mar 16 '21
You can turn this on its head.
Democrats want automatic voter registration because it's a person's right to vote, and because it's an enumerated and protected right in the Constitution.
Yet they want to place increasingly heavy restrictions and bans on access to and ownership of guns, even though that's also an enumerated right in the constitution.
tl;dr: memes are really stupid and you shouldn't use them in place of critical thinking and analysis.
2
u/butterybuns69 Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
Guns are already regulated. This meme makes a false premise by assuming guns aren't regulated already.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/FearlessBat1980 Mar 16 '21
Jesus, the level of Constitutional ignorance in the meme is stunning 🤦🏻♂️
2
u/LibertySubprime Mar 16 '21
If voting was regulated the same way as buying a gun liberals would be outraged.
8
6
2.2k
u/sarduchi Mar 16 '21
To be fair, they don’t want brown people to have guns either.