But Thats None Of My Business

But Thats None Of My Business Meme | IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THEN I GUESS PENCILS MISSPELL WORDS, CARS DRIVE DRUNK, AND SPOONS MAKE PEOPLE FAT BUT THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
40,752 views, 257 upvotes, Made by bull3131 27 months ago memesbut thats none of my businesskermit the frog
But Thats None Of My Business memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
29 ups, 3 replies
Sad stormtrooper | I WOULD OF LIKED TO BLAME THE GUN FOR ALWAYS MISSING, BUT NOW I'M WITHOUT AN EXCUSE | image tagged in sad stormtrooper | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
13 ups, 1 reply
Y U No Meme | STORMTROOPERS Y U NO HIT TARGET | image tagged in memes,y u no | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
Ancient Aliens Meme | STORMTROOPERS MUST BE ALIENS | image tagged in memes,ancient aliens | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups
But Thats None Of My Business Meme | I THINK THEY ARE MOSTLY COMPRISED OF CLONES BUT THATS NONE OF MY BUSINESS | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups
Kill Yourself Guy Meme | *WOULD'VE | image tagged in memes,kill yourself guy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
imgflip.com/i/va75h

No missing here
reply
23 ups
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | THIS GLASS IS SO DRUNK RIGHT NOW | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
16 ups
reply
[deleted]
15 ups
reply
14 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Your right...imgflip.com/i/v5lnr
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
0 ups
Grumpy Cat approves this message. :)
reply
15 ups, 1 reply
i couldn't resist!
reply
13 ups, 1 reply
me neither!
reply
3 ups
reply
10 ups
reply
[deleted]
9 ups
reply
7 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Because that might have a "disparate impact"
reply
4 ups
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
False. Spoons don't make people fat. Who ever heard of people getting fat by eating soup?
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
What kind of weirdo doesn't eat ice cream with a fork?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Your argument is invalid.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwivnreU08XJAhVIYiYKHUKNAuAQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kpopstarz.com%2Farticles%2F234264%2F20150825%2Fsuper-junior-siwon-she-was-beautiful.htm&psig=AFQjCNEryiHl2xndpuftok8B53ErQfaXeg&ust=1449436835936396
reply
1 up, 1 reply
1) That's healthy soup
2) He's using chopsticks
Anything else? :P
reply
1 up
That is a bowl of noodles. Noodles are high in carbs. Carbs are unhealthy. (• ? •)
reply
4 ups
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
Omg, this is the most overused argument ever. Its not even true. Its far easier to misspell words if you have a pencil, its far easier to drive drunk if you have a car. Why is the last one always targeted at Rosie O Donnell? Never understood that one.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Ya know,.. its the extreme left and extreme right that make this site funny! We disagree on some stuff,.. but at least we have some middle ground. The comments get hilarious,.. to include yours!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Fox and msnbc are sponsors I hear!
reply
0 ups
Now that's polar opposites!
reply
1 up
(I know right? Spoons didn't make Rosie fat, Twinkies did) LOL
reply
0 ups
It's a matter of principle.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
True, but people killed by guns is slightly bigger problem than misspelled words, so society should definitely care a lot more about who are we giving guns to than who are we giving penciles too. But I agree with the point of the meme, people are responsible for their actions.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Maybe your wording is a bit unintended, but 'We' don't 'give' people guns.... There is a Bill Of Rights which clearly describes the right for the INDIVIDUAL to have a gun if they want one (and this has been supported by fairly recent Supreme Court decisions)... Under these rights, 'society' doesn't decide whether a person, group of persons (ethnicity, class, etc) should have such rights -- it's in the Constitution, and for good reason.
reply
2 ups
I don't care about guns that much to really deeply debate the topic. I agree a person should have the right to own a gun, but the criteria for that should be quite harsh, but I am also aware that then people would probably buy them illegally as well. Nevertheless, selling a gun cannot be equalised to selling a pencil or something like that. :)
reply
0 ups
I know what you mean. It's just a matter of principle. :)
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Why? Are you thinking of buying a gun?
reply
2 ups
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
False; Toast is not sentient.
reply
0 ups
[image deleted]
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
https://imgflip.com/i/v99ln
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up
How do they do that (rewarding hardworking people)? Republicans have eroded the middle (HARD WORKING) class since 1980. Tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest simply DOESN'T trickle down and rain jobs on the middle class. It hasn't so far. Lowest taxes in decades.
reply
1 up
Guns don't kill people! Bullets do!
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
In Soviet Russia...
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Disagree respectfully.
First. I wish I could just put up a meme to respond. Ugh! Much more efficient than writing the essay that follows...
1- the liberal: "guns kill more owners than intruders in the home" canard. Burglars don't feel uncomfortable with a gun in their house. That's because they know how to use it. The gun doesn't know if the person using it is qualified. EXACTLY like the old thermos joke how it keeps the hot stuff hot and the cold stuff cold. "How does it know?" It doesn't.
2- the " guns were made to injure, they have no other purpose, therefore they can't be equivocated with a car or a pencil". Correct, and I am a citizen in good standing who knows how to use it and will use it if you enter my home without my consent. The real and difficult matter here is how to properly prevent an inanimate object from being in untrained hands or in criminal hands.
The liberal "all guns should be banned" is a canard and mediocre substitute for proper training and better laws screening out loonies.

Conversely: the conservative " gun ownership is my right" does not apply to people who forfeit rights whether from previous criminal all activity or physical disability ( e.g. Responsible gun owner who becomes blind)
It may truly be an inalienable right to own a gun.. But it's a privelege to be permitted to shoot it.
Both sides use reductionist concepts on the masses because it's easier than getting dirty and solving the issue.
- not a gun owner, not an NRA member.. But tell me I cannot own 1 and I'll be buying 10.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Liberals: guns are tools of death regardless of motive and are a part of the problem not the solution.
Liberals are not trying to to take your guns they want to save innocent lives
There are many Liberal gun owners

Thanks for attempting to speak for liberals when you aren't one.
Most of the other items mentioned in the meme do not have the potential to be tools of slaughter. And when retards drive drunk they get thrown in jail and have their licenses revoked (hence not even equivalent since these laws continuously enforced and there tangible repercussions for this) That's "false equivalency".
reply
1 up
Wait.. I'm not liberal?
Nice response.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
And I believe the "tool of slaughter" (nice hyperbole) part was covered.. I agreed a gun has but one purpose, to kill. That's why it's so difficult for lawmakers to step up and why discourse leads to reductionist arguments. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument for preventing reasonable laws from being enacted.
And their liberal counterparts generalize. It's political trench warfare for inches while people die.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't suffer under any delusion of "belief" or "beliefs"
Not recognizing guns for their intricate part in the clearly represented body counts requires a little shock value. Since apparently images of a purported terrorist, with so much ground beef oozing from an open head wound, and the innocent dead seems insufficient.
You're comments mocking the liberal point of view is rather confusing for a liberal.
And simply reducing a problem to it's baser elements is not reductionist, but focusing on the key elements.
Can't fix the leak 'til you find it.
And dude...language is pretty cool. And I'm usually pretty good at it. I'll express my disdain for the shedding of innocent blood using any imagery and emphasis I please, thank you very much.
If people dying were genuinely your concern, you wouldn't be bashing those with the exact
same
sentiment.
Instead, you focus on the divide.
good plan...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
We may define liberal differently. To me you sound left of center. A moderate. And I never said I was a liberal. You merely implied I was not. And to be able to challenge my own opinions (whether liberal or conservative on individual issues) seeing both sides of an argument is key for me to have a valid and flexible opinion. That's why I can make light of what I view are the more blind dogmatic liberal/conservative views. Because I seek to understand both sides before having my own opinion. That's not focusing on ”the divide". That's the product of thinking for myself from seeing both sides. I can tease either end of the spectrum and myself. So: on gun control I am Left of center of a label must be applied.
Sarcasm ( I.E. "Good plan" above) while a tool of the very intelligent is also just another coping mechanism for insecurity that sometimes ends with ad hominem attacks...
So: " good job!" On keeping the discourse rationale.,
Now: was what I just said sarcasm?
The last word is yours my tolerant, non-dogmatic, liberal friend.
The only kool-aid I drink is made by me.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
ugh...I hate Kool-aid anyway. I prefer Country Time Lemonade.

I would simply suggest promoting a "unity of purpose" not a "point out the perceived flaw in the argument" methodology.
reply
1 up
WhT is the put ropes you propose to unite under? Not rhetorical.
reply
0 ups
A gun is a 'tool of slaughter' only if it is used as such .... There are innumerable instances where a gun can deter slaughter, or save from further slaughter. The police, etc., used guns to kill the terrorists, which likely stopped further slaughter by the terrorists..... A gun, in the right hands, can also lead to the surrender of one in the wrong hands.... Of course, terrorists/criminals like these also have many other means for killing than just with guns.... A car can be deadly if used as a projectile into a crowd of people, for instance.... *And btw, many many people use guns solely for target competition.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It all comes down to our 2nd amendment rights.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Clearly words on paper mean more to some than dead people...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It has nothing to with "words on paper". It has to do with the right with which Americans are granted. Without rights America is pointless. If you want gun control, move to Britain.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Then join the National Guard or Reserves. That's what the intention of the 2nd amendment is about.
I'm finished here.
reply
0 ups
To directly quote the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, shall not be infringed."
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
thanks for proving you're more concerned with Death Cult rhetoric than saving lies. Enjoy that freedom to see innocent people murdered.
I'm done here.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 3 replies
"- not a gun owner, not an NRA member.. But tell me I cannot own 1 and I'll be buying 10."

I believe if so-called 'common sense gun laws' are enacted, as they really intend, most people will not be able to have a gun..... The 'background checks' will be constructed in such a way that they will be able to exclude anyone they so desire..... Besides, there are many gun laws already -- some are not even being enforced! ... One example is a federal law requiring a mandatory sentence when a gun is used in commision of a crime... It's virtually never enforced. Why is that? (research it).

Politicians LIVE off of passing new laws, because there is usually some sort of money in it for them. It makes them appear as if they're 'doing some good', and there is almost always an amount of money required to implement the laws -- that money comes from YOU (whether directly or indirectly)..... For example, think about it: if they pass a 'comprehensive background check' law, the background checks will not be for free; they will almost invariably want/have to employ more government employees (and who pays them?)... Or it's a possibility that a background check will be paid for (in whole or in part) by the applicant for the gun, AND, if the price of the background check is expensive (say, for example, it's $750), that alone will 'weed out' many people from being able to get a gun... And those people will be the poorer ones... So, it could be considered a restriction on the common person from being able to obtain a gun (actually, it's already a bit like that now -- do you think a very rich person is ever ultimately denied a gun?).... It's my belief that the 'common' sense gun laws really are intended tol cause the 'common' man from not ever being able to have a gun.
reply
1 up
I know.. Thats why although I abhor the NRA as a pool of ignoramouses, Their irrational , intractable, black and white, resistance to reasonable gun laws is necessary in light of the other sides ideologies which will likely remove gun rights from the same and qualified citizens in their attempt to protect us from ourselves. As I say somewhere in my rants here.. It's trench warfare.. 2 opposite crazies shrieking at each other in endures no movement either way.
Kind of like 2 extremists sitting at opposite ends of a long see-saw arguing while the masses are sitting closure to the fulcrum on both sides.
reply
1 up
Also.. I don't own guns.. But my skeet shooting partner is holding 2 for me prepaid.. So I have to get licensed and satisfactorily trained before I'll permit one in my home. And if laws prohibit ownership.. Then I'll be cutting holes in my drywall and putting them there in violation of the law. Lol
reply
1 up
And your comments are the very real counterpoint to my own left of center leanings.. That politicians, lobbyists, and the laws already on the books aren't even enforced... And will result in lowest common denominator thinking. "Ban all guns because it's just easier than doing our jobs thoughtfully."
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
These are analogies, not equivalencies (not spelled equvalencies).... The original meme poster is not trying to say everything he/she listed is 'equivalent'. He/she is simply pointing out that objects do not have minds of their own. It takes a conscious being (and usually willfully) to utilize those objects to cause the events to happen, as listed.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The objects listed have little or no equivalence in the consequences of their use.
Regardless of the user.

I would simply suggest promoting a "unity of purpose" not a "point out the perceived flaw in the argument" methodology.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I think the meme is not about the consequences of use, or equivalence (in fact, they were probably deliberately used because they are not equivalent).... Again it's simply about requiring somebody to use the objects -- that they don't act on their own. Maybe you are reading too much into it?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The language of the meme is clear, in that it's the objects that are to blame in each case. yet none of the latter mentioned consequences are even on par with the intended purpose of guns...which is maiming and death.
There's nothing more to read into it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Your first sentence I agree with... the rest I do not entirely agree with at all.... there's no intention to claim equivalency of consequences..... guns exist also to deter from killing/maiming/steeling/etc.... also keep in mind many many many people use guns in professional target sports...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
By using to guns deter loss of life, you must maim and kill, those are the consequences regardless of the motive.
The comparison is evident in the language of the meme.
No one is going around assaulting people with Big Macs and leaving a trail of bodies in their wake...."false equivalency".
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I beg you both.. Look to the thermos!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If guns were as dangerous (by themselves) as he implies, and if there are 300 million guns in the country, half of the entire population would have already been long dead.... It's a silly argument.... And I don't get this use of the term 'equivalency' all the time (maybe it's the word of the week)... There isn't any doubt that the possession and unfortunate sometimes deadly use of guns (or other weapons) has allowed this entire country to be either free from attack (ememies fearing us), or actually repelling those enemies by force...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Guns main use is to kill. Cars can be just as deadly but have a different main purpose.
To me that is the heart of the false equivalencies argument and a damn good one. But; the ignorant portion of the left wants to protect us from ourselves because they are too damn lazy to learn how to use a gun responsibly or recognize that like any other tool it has a place in the tool box. This fringe also deludes themselves they are all Gandhi and worse, we need to be protected from ourselves.
A gun is a tool, learn how to use it, know how to secure it and respect its power.
The idiot fringe on the right thinks responsible gun ownership begins and ends with the free access to one.
My fantasy is to lock both fringes in a room with plenty of weapons.
1- the right loons start the shooting
2- the left fringe decides in favor of self defense over limousine ideals
3- Darwin smiles as no one leaves the room alive.

The enemy is the inability to enact sensible gun laws and enforce them.
0 ups
The urban far left doesn't understand, that, for instance in a very tiny NH town where I have one house, there is NO police force whatsoever... There, the home owner is compelled to provide their own protection... A person may choose to be unarmed; then the 'protection' comes from a criminal's fear that you MIGHT have a gun -- since most all of your neighbors do have them.... (this is kind of the opposite of the foolish, virtual advertising of 'gun-free zones' -- where the criminal can be assured an easy time, knowing no one is armed at all).
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Rosie O'Donnell on "Oven Control". imgflip.com/i/vbnoc
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I think the link is incomplete (not workin')
<8o(
reply
1 up, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/vbnoc.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Ok, that's still just faf!!
<8o)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Glad you like it.. Now I hope we are on same page. There's no cure for stupid. And a meme is much easier than writing some discourse like I just did. Tx
reply
0 ups
Still only kinda. But I'm not bitter, Dude. it's cool.
;)
Flip Settings
But Thats None Of My Business memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THEN I GUESS PENCILS MISSPELL WORDS, CARS DRIVE DRUNK, AND SPOONS MAKE PEOPLE FAT BUT THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back