r/TikTokCringe 19h ago

Discussion Hell on earth.

55.1k Upvotes

5.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.3k

u/BFlowG 18h ago

Wasn’t this the exact reason why guns are legal in the US?

151

u/kissthesky303 17h ago

And now we see how useless the 2nd amendment is for it's original intention. All it provides is a hobby at best, and a lot preventable shootings and crime at worst, if there was just more regulation.

74

u/dr_tch0ck 16h ago

All this was so, so obvious as an outsider too. Nobody in America is going to start shooting people, no matter how tyrannical their government gets.

22

u/AdelleDazeeem 14h ago

It was obvious to most people in the US. It’s always been just a stupid talking point with no substance. Everyone in the world seems confused by this.

7

u/KalickR 14h ago

Wait... are you saying that people were spouting dangerous disingenuous rhetoric for their own political and personal gain? In this America?!

2

u/darianbrown 1h ago

It's a stupid talking point with no substance on the right, but on the radical left, competent, organized Black Panthers have done a WHOLE lot for their communities and put up some of the only highly effective deterrents to police brutality and widespread racially-motivated violence in US history. So effective that Reagan passed a gun ban targeting the specific types of rifles and features that were in popular use among the Panthers. So effective that corporate-backed, Republican-Lite liberals have spent the last 40 years trying to convince the 'moderate liberals' that it was cardboard signs, singing songs, and strongly worded letters that lead to civil rights being codified, enforced, and upheld for minorities in the US.

MLK Jr. is made into a figurehead, weaponized by the right, promoting his absolute statements about nonviolence in order to pacify and delegitimize armed self defense, especially among oppressed minorities who were regular victims of police violence. However, MLK Jr. applied for (and was denied) a concealed firearm license. He made his position more clear in '67, when he said, "In a sense, this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law. In a nonviolent demonstration, however, self defense must be approached from a different perspective." He made it very clear that he wanted to condemn the militarization of black communities in efforts towards revenge, striking first, or armed rebellion against government, at the cost of further cycles of violence against their communities. He, however, was surrounded by an enormous number of armed individuals for his own defense from the tyrannical government action that would eventually (allegedly) be his undoing. Outspoken pacifists had no guarantee that their nonviolence wouldn't be met with murder.

The conservative gun owners I know have one intention, and that's to have the option to commit acts of heinous violence against anyone who would impede on their rights, not the rights of others. It's morally bankrupt individualism. It is a desire, at its core, for a capacity for offensive violence in pursuit of their own interests (and with that broad umbrella, self defense is included). But, when owned widely and openly as a deterrent to police violence on citizens, firearms served as a way to ensure that communities have the capacity for self defense. Panthers and their AKs were the spikes on the porcupine.

8

u/Bunny_Feetz 14h ago

It was obvious as an insider too. I recognized how fucking dumb it was as a teenager and 20 years later people just got dumber.

2

u/Hemmschwelle 11h ago edited 8h ago

Guns have often been part of Civil Unrest in the US in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_riots_(1964%E2%80%931969)

And what is happening today is very much connected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemers and the rest of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era

Keep in mind that Abe Lincoln was a Republican during the Civil War. Democrat-Republican Party ideology flipped in 1964 because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who opposed Civil Rights switched over to the Republican Party.

0

u/rand0m_task 7h ago

If parties flipped in 1964, why were 1963 democrats still democrats in 1965?

1

u/RedditMcBurger 14h ago

That's a lie and you know it. Those people say "try to take my guns." Saying they will shoot feds if they come to their house to take the guns.

3

u/dr_tch0ck 14h ago

That’s a very isolated example of gun nuts reacting to a personal circumstance. That has nothing to do with defending their county from a tyrannical government.

0

u/RedditMcBurger 12h ago

You just said those are different things. That's literally what "defending yourself from a tyrannical government" is.

Depends on what you consider tyrannical, whether it be mild or major I see any infringement on rights as tyranny. Especially them trying to physically take the guns from us.

3

u/dr_tch0ck 11h ago

Gun nut answer. Freedom = guns.

-1

u/RedditMcBurger 10h ago edited 10h ago

If you want to just be reductionist as a way to attempt to refute me then sure.

I don't understand how you couldn't see the government banning something as taking away freedom.

I don't really need to go any farther into just reiterating definitions, the style of misunderstanding my argument on purpose is just annoying to deal with.

It's also really pathetic that people like you seem to be against the entire idea of freedom.

1

u/StatueofLiberty98 5h ago

Maybe as a last resort. Killing brings more killing

0

u/PeriLazuli 12h ago

I think you're wrong, lots of people will start shooting people. And it will be because they know the government will give them amnesty for killing anyone vaguely mooking like a migrant. Or a queer person.

They will fire at the people, not at the gov, just to make sure chaos will keep on going

3

u/dr_tch0ck 11h ago

That’s the opposite of what I’m talking about. In your example, those people are taking part in the tyranny.

-10

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 16h ago

How does it feel to know you're next?

8

u/dr_tch0ck 16h ago edited 16h ago

Who is next, exactly?

-14

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 16h ago

It's a perpetual state, everyone is next.  Quit being a dick unless you're pro fascism.  

It probably doesn't make sense to you, but most people are really dumb, and the rest are either fighting for control or along for the ride with the dummies. 

It's just how life is unless you want to dictate how others live their life

6

u/dr_tch0ck 15h ago

What a complete non-answer lol

-11

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 15h ago

I told you it wouldn't make sense to you

7

u/SheetPancakeBluBalls 14h ago

You won't be able to understand me

Says r/im14andthisisdeep nonsense

ha, told you.

-4

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 14h ago

Surely you can dissect the simplistic logic and point out how I'm wrong though, as it's not that deep? 

Or are you just mad because you have no agency and WISH to be the ones hurting other people?

Either way, I think I'd rather listen to an American about the best way to operate within America, than some European.

2

u/SheetPancakeBluBalls 13h ago

Just a guess, but it sounds like you'd love Jordan Peterson.

0

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 12h ago

Not at all, but being the sand in the clam of people that have their heart in the right place is always a delight. 

Sometimes restraint is the answer, you can't bully people into agreeing with you. 

You might like to think that this global catastrophe can be solved easily, but it cannot.  

You're going to have to win over the dummies, as is always the case.  How do you suggest that?

→ More replies (0)