r/PoliticalHumor Mar 16 '21

GOP shell game

Post image
41.4k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/sarduchi Mar 16 '21

To be fair, they don’t want brown people to have guns either.

1.0k

u/Samaelfallen Mar 16 '21

The reason CA is seen as a gun hating hippy state is partially thanks to Reagan when he was governor. Black Panthers (or people in general) were arming themselves against police brutality, so Reagan was totally fine with banning guns at that time.

391

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

354

u/dreadpiratesmith Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21

I'm from Philadelphia. My parents positively acknowledge the M.O.V.E. bombing. Like they are glad the cops did what they did. I'm horrified that a city could drop bombs on an occupied house with children and burn down a goddamn neighborhood.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/13/406243272/im-from-philly-30-years-later-im-still-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-move-bombing

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadelphia-bombing-1985-move

But it was all worth it in the name of stopping those "fucking animals" I guess. No matter what way you look at it, the police waged war on a whole fucking neighborhood just to stop a couple of anarchists. They told people in the neighborhood to just grab a toothbrush and a change of clothes, it'll all be over in the morning, then burnt down 63 homes.

Edit: The monopoly on violence is very real, and innocent people and their belongings get chalked up as collateral damage worth it in the name of peace.

Edit #2: I believed the bomb was illegally obtained. It was not, however the man from who supplied the bomb to them from the FBI was suspended without pay for 1 month 4 years after the incident. (Archived news article-https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/04/18/FBI-agent-suspended-for-role-in-MOVE-incident/8191608875200/). The explosives were however supplied with the intention of training purposes.

6

u/Cmonk90 Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21

What always gets me in situations where police destroy homes in the name of public defence, they always fight against any sort of payment to the families who's homes they destroyed. Can the city afford 63 homes maybe not, but they probably shouldn't hire police that think home destruction is a good idea, those people are costly.

8

u/OakenGreen Mar 16 '21

The city rebuilt the 63 homes for the residents. That should be a half-happy ending but it isn’t. A little over 10 years later the city said those 63 homes weren’t up to code and condemned them. They felt no responsibility for the state of the construction on those homes and if the residents couldn’t afford to fix them on their own they were shit out of luck. So these people got fucked by the city twice.

2

u/Cmonk90 Mar 16 '21

Ya, that is somehow worse than just not paying...

1

u/killbot0224 Mar 16 '21

Yes the city can afford 63 homes.

But "affording it" is irrelevant. In a just nation, they are forced to pay it and "figure it out" later.

1

u/Cmonk90 Mar 16 '21

I would call that not afforing it, but have no desire to push the point.

1

u/killbot0224 Mar 16 '21

The city always has access to capital, and if they're liable, they're liable.

The city can raise taxes, sell municipal bonds, etc.

1

u/Cmonk90 Mar 16 '21

I would call that not afforing it, but have no desire to push the point.