Matrix Morpheus

Matrix Morpheus Meme | WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THE ONLY REASON THE LEFT WANTS YOUR GUNS IS SO THEY CAN TAKE YOUR SPEECH | image tagged in memes,matrix morpheus,2nd amendment,1st amendment | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
17,052 views, 150 upvotes, Made by SpursFanFromAround 5 months ago memesmatrix morpheus2nd amendment1st amendment
Matrix Morpheus memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
25 ups, 1 reply
Roll Safe Think About It Meme | CAN'T ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP WITH AN ARMED POPULATION | image tagged in memes,roll safe think about it | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Because socialism is such a good idea
reply
12 ups, 1 reply
Exactly.
reply
5 ups
Am I The Only One Around Here Meme | Am I the only official with a gun around here? Good!  Shut the free speech up! | image tagged in memes,am i the only one around here | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
12 ups, 5 replies
Futurama Fry Meme | HOW ARE THEY STILL PROTECTED BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT WITH ALL THESE RIOTS THEY HAVE STARTED | image tagged in memes,futurama fry | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
14 ups, 2 replies
What amazes me is that liberals are always saying how much they hate guns and violence but the moment they lose and election or court case they all too happily turn to it like a swarm or pissed off hornets. And as soon as they are done with their little tempter tantrums they go back to telling the rest of us how they're so much more "evolved, mature, civilized, and enlightened" than the rest of us "savage Neanderthals".
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Nice straw man :)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
A strawman implies an argument lacks substance. Not applicable.
reply
1 up
His argument is fallacious because he's saying that liberals as a group engage in violence. That is both false and absurd.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And antifa doesn't represent all liberals.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Our views don't necessarily represent all conservatives.
reply
1 up
True. Most conservatives have a better taste in comedy than trash memes.
reply
1 up
You're right
reply
1 up
WOW! An example of the clearest of thinking. They are Pawns of Pelosi and her Persuasion. These Politicians Prey on Powerless People who are just Plain Puerile.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Good point

Personally, I'm not all that well-versed on what the limitations of the freedom of speech are. I've heard that calls to action are not protected, is that correct?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
its only unprotected if it starts a riot
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Words can't start a riot. People do. Isn't that the gun logic?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It is usually defined as "inciting violence" or "inciting riot" and, at least in some states, is against the law. There are much more lengthy definitions associated with it and clear outlines of what is considered inciting. The parts I have read seem rather reasonable.
Link to Breach of Peace and Riot according to Texas Statutes -
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/DocViewer.aspx?DocKey=PE%2fPE.42&Phrases=Inciting%7criot&HighlightType=1&ExactPhrase=False&QueryText=Inciting+riot
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Inciting violence" which includes rioting, is the one thing not protected by free speech. In other words, if I'm not mistaken, it's a federal crime which may be legalized in some states.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Pretty sure the 10th Amendment say that what is not privilege or prohibited by the Constitution falls to the responsibility of the state or the people. Pretty sure there are not federal laws that can be superceded (less restrictive) by a state law.
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Then if you're right, then it's not against the law in "some states", it's against the law in ALL states, since incitement to violence is not protected under free speech, meaning it's prohibited.
reply
1 up
Have a read of the two links I posted, one of the 10th Amendment, and one of Texas Statute that outlines freedom of speech is protected except when it's mere utterance is an immediate breach of peace. Read what I posted, find your own references, then we can discuss established fact and the interpretation of the established laws. Discussing speculative assumptions does no good for anyone.
reply
2 ups
The people who speak (or write) the words do.
reply
2 ups
Freedom of speech is protected, and always will be as long as there is a 2nd to protect the first. Riots and property damage are not legal, and are prosecuted, however, with as long as the legal system takes for conclusions to come about, there is very little sensational value for the mainstream media to report of cases that have been adjudicated.
reply
2 ups
Protests are legal. When a protest becomes violent and there is damage to property and physical assaults (both of which are ILLEGAL), that becomes a Riot and is illegal.
reply
1 up
Same way they pull off this stuff...

i.imgflip.com/25vp8q.jpg (click to show)
reply
[deleted]
12 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups
It's liberal logic 101.
reply
8 ups
reply
8 ups
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Then that would be your personal opinion, and a rather unproductive one at that.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I judging you based on what you said
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
PURE WISDOM... in addition to being a Spurs Fan.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
Just so there's no confusion, it's the San Antonio Spurs, the basketball team, not the soccer team. There has been some confusion in the past with my name. Lol.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up
See, when you said spurs, my mind went immediately to the video to “She shook me all night long”.
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
reply
3 ups
I'm not a republican or conservative but do support gun rights. Couldn't resist a bad luck Brian meme though lol
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
The way I like it.
reply
2 ups
Good point!
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I've had it with these mother____ing political memes on this mother____ing site! I'm sick of it. And also, everyone';s forgotten that no one cares about your opinion and also, it doesn't matter ON THE GO***MN INTERNET! Downvote brigade me all you want, but I'm sick of waves upn waves of political memes which aren't even funny or even memes.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Lol!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Don't be stupid. They already are trying to take speech.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
This meme is wrong. They want to take your speech, your religion, your money, your life, your car....
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Evidence?
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
History is my evidence. If you think that disarming the populace just so they (the government) can protect the children, then I have one "word" for you. Baaaaaaa.

All you have to do is look at Nazi Germany as a more recent example. The first thing Adolf did was disarm the people.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"If you think that disarming the populace just so they (the government) can protect the children, then I have one "word" for you. Baaaaaaa."

Show me where I said I wanted to disarm the populace. Secondly, you're calling out my free speech for being based on others' opinions (hence the "baaaaaa"), which is an ad hominem attack. Nice argument. You should run for Congress.

"All you have to do is look at Nazi Germany as a more recent example. The first thing Adolf did was disarm the people."

Actually, when I look at Nazi Germany, the first thing Hitler did was make solutions for Germany seem simple by blaming the Jews and carrying a high charisma, hence the Charlie Chaplin look he gave. Hitler only disarmed the minorities (Jews, homosexuals, communists; anyone Hitler didn't like) while having the majority (the Nazis) keep their weapons. However, it is necessary in debates for Republicans to bring up this thing about Hitler to make Democrats feel guilty about pushing a few more limits on who gets to own guns.
i.imgflip.com/26dxk4.jpg (click to show)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Hitler did disarm the populace. Your denial of it is showing. And it was most definitely one of the first things he did. And I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler. I'm comparing what Hitler, among many other world leaders from around the world have done in the past. Disarm the people and the people cannot fight back. Ignorance is bliss, so it seems.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"Hitler did disarm the populace."

A small portion of it, not his Nazi buddies. Merely Jews, gays, commies, and other minorities.

I'm not denying, just fact-checking.

"And I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler"

I didn't say you were comparing anyone to Hitler, just virtually anything.

"Disarm the people and the people cannot fight back."

Democrat libtards seem to be doing fine without guns.
i.imgflip.com/27ed8p.jpg (click to show)

"Ignorance is bliss, so it seems."

Yeesh.. all it took me was some research.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Research of what exactly?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Research of what Hitler did with his people. He gassed the Jews, the gays, and the commies while letting those who weren't Jewish, gay, or communist (or who Hitler didn't like) live free with their weapons.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
How sure are you about already knowing the story?

(Obviously not the question to ask the conservative part of the United States, hence believing they know the story without having looked at the proper reasons)
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
Hitler didn't gas anybody.Stop spreading lies.
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
5 ups, 7 replies
Democrats aren't trying to take your guns away people.
reply
14 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
In that case you must be an advocate for children voting, being able to drink at any age, making drugs legal, and be pro choice.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
How does being against government OVERREACH translate into children not being raised or supervised by responsible adults? I'm waiting for a logical response from you, Not another knee jerk.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Children are also American citizens, they are highly vested in the future of the country. Why should they not have a way of shaping the American government in a way that works for them. Would it be government overreach by limiting their contributions in shaping the future of the country? Is it government overreach by telling someone they cant put something in their body whether it be drugs or alcohol? Would it be government overreach by telling a woman she has to have a baby? You're relating the 2nd amendment to a specific freedom, would you say the other ones I have listed aren't also freedoms?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Liberals think that everyone is entitled to something. 'I'm an American. I deserve ____'

Lol. No you don't.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"I'm an American. I deserve the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution"

Do you disagree with this statement?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I absolutely agree with it.

Children being allowed to vote is not in the constitution. Being able to do drugs is not in the constitution. Being able to murder an unborn child because it's inside of you is not in the constitution.

A lot of liberals think that whatever they want is their right to have. That's not how it works. The government can tell us what to do but they are limited by the constitution and the fear of retaliation by armed citizens. Get rid of that fear and they will get rid of the constitution so that they can tell you whatever they want.

One retired Supreme Court justice has publicly called out for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. If that happens, why not the 1st? Why not all of our rights? Because they care and want what's best for us? Give me a break.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Many conservatives are the same way. Some of them like to ignore the Constitution and do whatever they want. I've literally heard at least one conservative pundit (Bryan Fischer) say that the First Amendment only protects Christianity, and that individual states can outlaw Islam and atheism. That's f**king retarded.

And as far as what Justice Stevens recently said, I absolutely disagree with him. We should not repeal the Second Amendment, ever.
reply
0 ups
I end up hearing more whacko liberals because my iPhone's news app tends to spit that stuff at me. I forget that there are some whacko conservatives out there too.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
My original response was no knee jerk, but an equally extreme response to your extreme assumption.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
They are not grown adults who should go with out guidance and supervision, and you know that. Your argument is absurd. And I think you know it. If you are looking for someone to take the bait and get into some kind if rigged back-and-forth you have the wrong one. I stand by my meme. And you don't have to like it.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I do agree that my meme response was absurd. But to think that our government and country which cornerstone is freedom will somehow take away freedom is absurd. And I understand I don't have to like your meme, you also don't have to like mine - you just happened to comment on my meme so I responded.
reply
2 ups
I don't care if you like my meme. My sentiment stands. It's happening more and more all the time.
reply
1 up
You're living in a happy bubble.
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I feel like you're coming from this kind of position
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I don't watch Fox News or any other mainstream media. But if you believe their main goal isn't taking all guns to get to our free speech, you're a sheep. That's exactly what they want you to think.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Religion has nothing to do with this conversation. I use the term "sheep" very lightly. Sheep are dumb animals who follow what they're told. I'm not suggesting you're dumb, but maybe niave or ignorant on the 2nd amendment.

The government does not want to only take so-called assault rifles and bump stocks. First of all, assault rifles refers to just about every type of gun. Second, banning bump stocks and a few types of guns will not stop mass shootings.
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
No doubt, religion has nothing to do with it, I was just using it as an example of how ridiculous the logic of your argument was. And I agree with you, the solution isn't to take away guns. I also say that the solution isn't giving everyone and their brother access to a firearm too. It starts with making sure that guns are in the hands of peaceable citizens and not people who will do terrible things with them.
reply
2 ups
But there-in lies the rub, right? Outside of the obvious, convicted felons and those committed due to mental illness, how do you determine who is too dangerous to own a gun? We have a long precedent of determining 18 year olds are mature enough to handle a weapon. In fact we hand more powerful weapons to them along with ammo in the army. (I just wanted to take that one off the table as "21" is an arbitrary feel-good number.) I'm not opposed to looking at solutions, but the government does not enforce the laws on the books. This to me seems like the practical place to start.
reply
0 ups
There are already laws in place for that, felons and perpetrators of violent crimes can not legal acquire a firearm. And I say legally because they are criminals, and do not follow the law anyway. So how will more legislation keep criminals from breaking more laws?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Same logic holds true if someone DOES believe X. So all Religious people are sheep. And all scientists are sheep.
reply
2 ups
Exactly my point haha
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
*cough cough*MSNBC and CNN* cough cough*
reply
4 ups
Really? then why did a Former Supreme Court Justice Just advocate for the Repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

Why was MLK's Grand Daughter speaking about a Dream of a "World without Guns" (not a world without Violence)?

Why were there Signs saying "the 2nd amendment is Killing Us"?

and you still think the endgame Isn't a disarmed Populace?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Ikr? Lib logic lol.
reply
3 ups
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I had this "they're not really trying to take them all" argument on another thread. A memer here made a good one recently that answers it:

i.imgflip.com/278tgf.jpg (click to show)

I'll say what I said there:

You shouldn't act so surprised, this is actually very common. I happen to know people myself that are actually that stupid and would disarm the entire country if they could. I mean I could say "OMG terrorism everywhere!!!" - and there isn't a liberty in the entire Bill of Rights these pseudoliberal ditzes wouldn't surrender.

And it's not "exceptions." You appear to have ignored my famous Dem leader Dianne Feinstein quote, so I will give it to you again. She said, "“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun), 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in', I would have done it.”

Just be honest with the facts. The other "side" is not only sometimes right, but sometimes smarter than you. It won't kill you to admit it. It'll help you eventually see the fact the whole "sides" dynamic is a CONTROL MECHANISM.

You gotta start small, and you can get there.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I totally agree with you that the side game is getting a bit ridiculous. Remember the good old days where it was a road and being center was just fine. The polarization on issues like this is absolutely insane. I'm a democrat and I believe in the 2nd. A certain version where we take into account the words of Sam Adams back in the day saying the constitution should not be used "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms". A key part of that is peaceable - those not prone to argument or violence.

There are extremes on both sides. You have Feinstein who is a hard liberal. But then you also have Obama who has literally said in town hall meetings that he's not out to take people's guns. If you look at his bills he sponsored as a Senator and bills he pushed for as 44, none of them focused on restricting gun ownership. More background checks and closing of loopholes that could make it so an unstable person could get their hand on a weapon, yes. But confiscate law abiding citizens guns, no. And this isn't me being a "sheep" these are facts, you can look into all the votes kept on record.

I agree with a lot of people when I say taking away everyones guns isn't the answer. I also don't think giving everyone and their teacher a gun is the answer either. And I don't think that pointing out Australia or Switzerland as examples is going to make a difference. As Americans we have to figure out what works for us, all of us.
reply
0 ups
I agree with everything you said, except the parts about the background checks and the closing of loopholes.
1) What would be suitable for background checks to include or his indepth should they go? The background checks I am aware of are as intensive as allowed by law at the moment. And if the background check takes too long, then that is an electrical infringement on the 2nd Amendment, just like case law has established being detained on a traffic stop too long with lack of probable cause is a violation of the 4th Amendment. So how is minutes a violation of the 4th but days would be acceptable for the 2nd when there is no Probable Cause for the days of delay?
2) I have not been able to locate any of these "loopholes" that have been annotated through the media. Everything I have found has been within the confines of that states legislated statues. So my question is, what are your suggested changes for these loopholes?
Hopefully, we can show some of these others how a conversation of dissenting opinions should play out.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Donald J. Trump threatened to sue The New York Times for libel on Wednesday night in response to an article that featured two women accusing him of touching them inappropriately years ago, but the newspaper defended its reporting and told Mr. Trump's lawyer that “we welcome the opportunity to have ...
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Yeah, Donald Trump is pretty sick toward women and cheated or cheats on his wife as he did with his first two wives. He's a perv, indeed and possibly even a scumbag toward women in general.

Kinda like Bill Clinton and all of the Kennedy men.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
He hasn't done anything illegal, if that's what you're suggesting. Clinton and Kennedy both **ped women. That's illegal.
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Show me proof that Trump actually **ped women. There is clear evidence that both Kennedy and Clinton did. From all the evidence out so far on Trump, it has all been consensual. That isn't **pe, you troglodyte. Even "Stormy Daniels," the dopey washed up p0rn star said the encounter with her was consensual. Derp!
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
you are an idiot partisan hack - so freaking clueless and trump ass licking as to be unbelievable - stfu. - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/30/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-full-list
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Allegations, dummy. You know what allegations mean? Here's a hint for you, shit-for-brains-troll, it doesn't mean fact. Jesus, you're stupid.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Naw, cause I'm still waiting for you to post all the proof of Trump's illegal activities.

But I'm done wasting my time with you. All you're doing is jumping off subject on the original meme I posted.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And posting links to snopes doesn't help your argument. lol! And you talk about me being biased. Good day to you, sir.
reply
0 ups
So, you call him a partisan hack, then the "proof" you post if from the guardian... Why Not world weekly news, they are just as reputable?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So you think marrying a foreigner is somehow wrong? Hmmmmm...

And you condemning one person of wrong doing and ignoring another for the same is quite telling.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I already addressed that. I don't need to address it again.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Ok cool, take all of it. There is no point in demolishing it or maintaining it. You will regret any choice you make in life if I fight for free speech, I'll regret it, if I don't I'll also regret it. There is no choice in life only regret. Your American centered morality causes you to blind thyself, you have no idea why you believe what you believe you only regurgitate.

"Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both." - Søren Kierkegaard
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
This was caused by a rich madman with multiple weapons.........the same kind of person who would still have those weapons and do what he did even if you banned guns tomorrow. Australia banned theirs in 1996. They now have more guns than they did in '96. Where are all the mass shootings? It's almost as if it is a people problem and not a gun problem! Mental Health reform is what is loooooonnngggg overdue. Fix the people.........Fix the problem
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And maybe the first step to fix the people is to stop giving them the easy power of death and life on other people on the street ? ...
reply
2 ups
The Man had a Pilot's license and two Private Planes... he could have just as easily 'Kamakaze'd the Concert, the Hotel or the Strip... and considering the 'materials' he'd amassed; what he did, had to be The Least efficient (pardon the choice of words) display of his "easy power of Death and Life"
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
'Australia banned theirs in 1996. They now have more guns than they did in '96. ' Got a source for that?
reply
3 ups
Throw a dart and pick one dude. Not hard to research anymore.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
And you also proved the point that a free country can take away a shite load of guns, not turn into a dictatorship, and if what you say is even half true, with the measures they no doubt use to make sure that the wrong people don't get them, allow guns in society. If you want to see some strict gun control laws, check out what it takes for the average citizen to get one there. And that's a country that has actual terrorists coming into the country to do harm. Vs the US where we grow them right in our own back yards.
reply
2 ups
Thought my point was rather clear honestly. And please, lets not try to compare what worked for a country of 18 million (24 million now) with completely different demographics, cultures, past, etc... with a country of 324 million. I'm so tired of hearing it said like it's so crystal clear. Its like assuming that what works in a small town with 237 people will translate flawlessly to somewhere like Chicago. Not denying something needs to be done, just not to the extreme that a bunch of puppeted teens say.
reply
1 up
Two very different geographic challenges by each if the countries you are comparing with two very different governmental structure. The US earned it's freedom and took it with a firearm. Australia was granted what freedoms they have. What has more value to you, something earned or something given? This is an apples to oranges comparison between Australia and the US. And you said it "CAN TAKE AWAY GUNS AND NOT TURN INTO A DICTATORSHIP", but that means it is done by choice, plus history isn't done being written yet. However, the 2nd Amendment is what keeps the government in check so that it CAN'T become tyrannical, be it dictatorship or otherwise. The US Government structure is built on checks and balances, such as between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, all of which are kept in check by THE PEOPLE, with the 2nd Amendment.
Flip Settings
Matrix Morpheus memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHAT IF I TOLD YOU; THE ONLY REASON THE LEFT WANTS YOUR GUNS IS SO THEY CAN TAKE YOUR SPEECH
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback