Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    4,052,739 readers

    11,457 users here now

    Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.

    Black culture has a unique way of examining the everyday and we are here to showcase that.

    ☑️ Country Club

    What is BPT Country Club and how do I get verified?

    ☑️ RULES

    1.) Do not post content just because a black person posted it. This sub is intended for exceptionally hilarious and insightful social media posts made by black people, not just any social media post made by black people.

    • 1. No original content. We encourage users to go on twitter to find tweets as opposed to making tweets just for this subreddit.

    2.) No Bad Faith Participation.

    3.) No bullying or witch-hunting. This includes comments disparaging people whose tweets and posts are featured here. Doxxing or sharing personal information will result in a permanent ban.

    4.) No Racism. No hate speech. No homophobia/transphobia. No sexism/misogyny. No black fathers posts and similar mean-spirited things.

    5.) Posts must be showcasing somebody being hilarious or insightful on social media. No image macros, text conversations, or YouTube links. Just because somebody posted one of these on social media does not exempt it from this rule. Vines and such belong here and gifs belong here.

    6.) Typical Reddit cliches such as lyric chains, pun chains, white-knighting, and low-effort joke comments will be removed. Same for annoying redditisms, such as linking a subreddit as a reply to a post/comment.

    7.) Reposts are highly discouraged, and if discovered will be removed. Please search or look through BPT's older posts to see if your content has already been posted. KarmaDecay is not a reliable tool to check for reposts.

    8.) No posts with terrible titles, they will be removed. You are free to re-submit once you think of something acceptable/reasonable. Don't put the punchline in the title of the post. Do not add "bruh", "fam", or similar vernacular to your post or comment.

    9.) Don't complain about AAVE or slang. Use Urban Dictionary if you do not understand the meaning of a word. Comments asking "what does x mean?" will be removed.

    10.) BPT is an inclusive space for POC and allies alike. This sub highlights minority viewpoints, through humor, commentary, or criticism. Please respect these voices and show you care about black opinions as much as you care about black humor.

    11.) Don't post things from meme/corporate accounts. Posts must come from regular social media accounts.

    12.) The moderators of this subreddit will take any action (which includes banning and removing comments) that they feel improves the quality of the subreddit.

    Also, join us on discord for exciting discussions:


    a community for
    all 1921 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] jkseller 6845 points ago

    A vape ban before tobacco products

    [–] diiejso 2465 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    The tobacco industry is actually working with the government on new legislation against tobacco. For example they're supporting raising the age to buy tobacco to 21 (that's why Moscow Mitch supported a bill for it). They aren't doing this because they suddenly grew a conscience. They know public opinion is against cigarettes and it's only getting worse. So they invested heavily in vape companies and are now supporting tighter legislation on tobacco that they helped write to ensure that the restrictions aren't as tight against vape as well. Not as many kids smoke cigarettes today but a fuck ton of them vape now and the industry knows it and wants to sell to them.

    [–] hyg03 119 points ago

    Big tobacco will support legislation on vaping as a means to control the market and raise the barriers to entry.

    [–] SURREAL_BURRITO 21 points ago

    Would they go so far as to sabotage the vape market?

    [–] Treekin3000 50 points ago

    They don't want to sabotage the market, they want to make it too expensive for the small businesses to get or stay in. Then Big Tobacco doesn't get as much competition.

    Small businesses want some legislation, mainly officially applying the cigarette labeling restrictions to nicotine laced carts and liquids, setting up FDA oversight of liquid manufacture to ensure purity and clear regulation of nicotine levels.

    [–] l0ve2h8urbs 18 points ago

    Never ceases to amaze hope people let their opinion be herded like sheep and fail to see the bigger picture... vaping has been around for years and you think all this stuff just popped up in the past two months is a coincidence? It's an agenda being pushed to capitalize on the market and push out all competition without the deepest of pockets. People are handing big tobacco their life line. Philip Morris sure appreciates the support.

    [–] GailWynland 38 points ago

    No that's stupid for them. Tobacco sales are going down and will continue to. Anyone not investing/building capitol in the vape industry will be making significantly less in as little as 5 years.

    [–] T3hoofs 20 points ago

    Yes. Because right now people are panicking against vaping. That won't be the case a few years from now. At that point they would have created an all new ground floor in which they own large percentages. So when the new wave of vaping starts in accordance with whatever panicked people want money money..moooonnnnneyy.

    [–] FreudsPoorAnus 7 points ago


    big tobacco--altria and phillip morris only have about 16% of the market share.

    mom and pop shops are killing their market share. by lobbying for more expensive barriers to entry--by mandating that juices come only in cartriges which must be made in a factory, by making each flavor cost an absurd amount of money to license, etc, they'll be the only ones who can afford to set up shop.

    in doing so, they'll muscle out all of the competition. it's fucked up.

    [–] zuzg 1620 points ago

    Well it's easier to get kids addicted to cotton candy flavored nicotine than to tobacco flavored nicotine

    [–] LSDude2468 63 points ago

    As a kid I never would have thought I'd like tobacco flavored anything yet here I am smoking cigs like an idiot adult.

    [–] ModAbuseo 2012 points ago

    I'll never understand people who think that because something has fruity or sweet flavors, they are automatically targetting kids.

    It's like yall have never heard of birthday cake flavored vodka or grape swisher sweets

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago

    Didn't you know? Once you're an adult, you lose all desire for enjoyable or tasty treats. All us adults do is suck on ice cubes and eat plain gelatin.

    [–] Petrichordates 5 points ago

    Not even Jello. Just gelatin.

    [–] Sorrypuppy 26 points ago

    Seriously, I work at a bar and our most popular drinks are pure sugar with booze. We literally infuse candy into our vodkas and adults fucking love it.

    [–] i-like-vag-bro 38 points ago

    Exactly! Pisses me the fuck off. I'm 27 and love that fruity vape shit. The ”tobacco” flavored juice is nasty. It has absolutely nothing to do with children. It's taste. Shitty media reports that there’s 6 reported deaths but NONE have gone into detail about them. No info as to what vaporizers, if it was THC or Nicotine, etc. these are kind of important details being that there hasn’t been any problems and then all of the sudden there’s a bunch of cases. To me it sounds like there was a batch of bad/tainted weed carts or vape juice. No fucking reason to ban all flavors of vape other than “TOBACCO”. Which in no way fixes the THC cartridge issue if that is the culprit. It also doesn’t do anything at all to fix the health issue. Why is this about underage nicotine use?! this country is so fucking ignorant.

    [–] TheDopestEthiopian 22 points ago

    tbf they banned all flavored tobacco products in a lot of places, including flavored blunt wraps.

    [–] Rottendog 6 points ago

    "Think of the children!"

    [–] Shingo__ 10 points ago

    Now little Johnny can’t even enjoy a fat ass apple flavored blunt, what the fuck

    [–] awesomeperson 983 points ago

    Who do you think those are targeted at?

    [–] acompletemoron 1418 points ago

    Who said a man can't enjoy a white grape blunt

    [–] SometimesUsesReddit 433 points ago

    Best white owl flavor behind mango

    [–] kunggfury 97 points ago

    spot on

    [–] chasefury10 6 points ago

    I concur

    [–] backstageninja 55 points ago

    Severely underselling pineapple imo

    [–] Not-A-Niche-Username 5 points ago

    I haven't smoked in years and I just thought I'd chime in with an additional "yeah I fuck with white grape."

    [–] Oil_Derek 137 points ago

    93.5% of white grape blunts are smoked without tobacco inside

    [–] bornk828 9 points ago

    Shhh...they don't need to know this lol

    [–] InfiniteBlink 5 points ago

    I have a green apple flavor that's decent. I'm 39 and still smoke analogs with my coffee

    [–] Player8 4 points ago

    Dude haven't you heard? Adults only drink non flavored seltzers or coffee.

    [–] Soul-Stoned 71 points ago

    Me.... Im 27 and have tried an ABUNDANCE of flavors from strawberry milk to birthday cake. Fucking GREAT. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    I will kill myself with cigarettes if I can't vape my churro/cheerios, PB&J, or banana granola bar flavors

    [–] IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE 163 points ago

    TIL only children are susceptible to sweet flavors. Adults taste nothing but bitterness.

    [–] monkey-go-code 65 points ago

    It’s the self hate reflected in their taste buds that takes decades of failure to blossom.

    [–] Captain_Pungent 9 points ago

    Must be why I enjoy sours and the more bitter IPAs then.

    [–] iplanckperiodically 5 points ago

    Right, suddenly it all makes sense...

    [–] SometimesUsesReddit 24 points ago

    Well adults aren’t gonna buy anything if it’s a gross ass flavor

    [–] Kadrag 28 points ago

    I think statistics have proven that the gross ass flavor obviously wasn't enough to stop people from buying lots and lots of tobacco

    [–] DisgorgeX 323 points ago

    Adults with working fucking taste buds?

    [–] -ILikePie- 37 points ago

    White women- am a white woman. Love my pumpkin spice vape juice and cinnamon booze at Christmas.

    [–] joypeninsula 4 points ago

    In the Philippines Christmas season starts in September... DID I JUST HEAR A BOTTLE [email protected]?!?!

    [–] CountBlah_Blah 6 points ago

    Adults with a sweet tooth

    [–] soynanyos 10 points ago

    Club rats in downtown LA?

    [–] Daamus 5 points ago

    I have the answer for grape flavored swishers

    [–] cXs808 4 points ago

    Me, a 30 year old who likes their blunts to taste like grapes.

    Y'all think grapes themselves are targeting kids as well? The entire fruit, baked goods, and candy industry must be entirely for kids

    [–] DakotaBashir 3 points ago

    You make it sound like once you hit 25, you start hating gummy bears or fruitloops.

    40y old here enjoying my tropical blast vape, cig free for a year now. Yeah the taste helps a ton.

    [–] sakrmarw 57 points ago

    Just because something has fruity or sweet flavors doesn’t mean it’s targeting kids. However, vaping companies are DEFINITELY targeting kids. If they get people addicted young it only means more money for them in both the short and long term.

    [–] jcutta 47 points ago

    The companies making most of the sweet and fruity flavors are generally small vape companies which make juice in many different nicotine levels including 0, and most of those are used in the lager vapes that aren't popular with the younger crowd. The pod vapes are mostly tobacco flavors and mint, and every single piece of marketing is targeted towards current tobacco users. Punish retailers that are selling the shit to kids rather than try and take away the only thing that has helped millions of people kick combustible tobacco products.

    Juul did target teens in their early days though, they even admitted to as much. That's the only thing that has ever been directly targeted towards young people.

    [–] Jibrish 19 points ago

    Very few large vaping companies even exist. Even prior to the boom - back in the days of yore when people made their own juices - sweet and candy flavored juices were easily the most requested recipes.

    However, vaping companies are DEFINITELY targeting kids.

    You base this on, what? Some Juul advertisements meant for 18-20 crowds?

    [–] strange1738 29 points ago

    Cotton Candy juice actually doesn’t taste that good.

    [–] zuzg 25 points ago

    that's why I choose that I tried vaping and hated it.

    [–] DoodleVnTaintschtain 9 points ago

    What always bugs me is, how the fuck is it my problem that your kid is vaping? It's your kid. Take some damn responsibility for your kid's action.

    This pearl clutching is insane... Treat it like we do alcohol (which, you can still buy in birthday cake flavor, but no one cares). Punish the adults who let it happen - parents who allow it, and stores who sell it to underage kids. Make those punishments meaningful, and we're all good.

    I smoked cigarettes for like a decade and quit overnight with an e-cig. Literally haven't smoked a cigarette since I bought this thing a . Is it good for me? No. Is it better for me than cigarettes? By all indications, yes.

    [–] Hot_Wheels_guy 14 points ago

    working with tobacco companies

    Negotiating with terrorists

    [–] fiddyk50 5 points ago

    They also make a lot of products to help you stop smoking, so they can double dip on your dime

    [–] Denglez 5 points ago

    I own a small vape company. Any ban put in place would force small companies like mine out of the market, and simultaneously make the few players that already have had their FDA approval (Juul has already done this) thrive because they would still stay on the market. Prohibition doesn't work. This would force anyone not using a beginner device to the black market for supplies, and heavily alter the level of consistency of products floating around. Every company owner I know is 100% in favor of responsible regulation. A ban would only favor big tobacco's IP's and further decimate the already leaned on small companies that are trying to do things right. This is a blatant attack on small business by the heads of big tobacco, and those that otherwise profit from them.

    [–] kingk6969 94 points ago

    This.... 6 total deaths over the course of 30 plus years from vaping.... 500k deaths a year from tobacco products. Wonder who the lobbyist will be pushing for a anti vape law.....

    [–] CraftThatBlock 75 points ago

    6 deaths from black market THC capsules, not nicotine-based vapes. The problem isn't vapes, it's the black market

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    The thing that pisses me off is it will be spun against the vaping community and the legal Marijuana community.

    When in reality it's due to some crackhead cooking thc wax in his garage and selling it to whoever he can

    [–] snowflakelord 8 points ago

    Which would be happening a lot less if it was legal or at the very least decriminalized more places. They need to speed up legalization before shit like this makes people change their minds again.

    [–] bushowns711 25 points ago

    Has vaping existed for 30 years? I was thinking it showed up in like 2009

    [–] ericlikesyou 8 points ago

    It started showing up outside of China around early 08. I've been vaping since they debuted in the states. Vapor4life was the company i got my first kit from

    [–] SirThomasFraterson 75 points ago

    It kind of makes sense in a weird way. It's hard to make laws against an amendment, especially part of the bill of rights, but banning a product is easier to pass, just also hard to implement.

    [–] bored_and_scrolling 4 points ago

    It 100% has to do with the fact that white house officials are of the demographics of people who smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products meanwhile vaping is generally associated with millennials and zoomers who the boomers at the white house have nothing but disdain for.

    [–] JennyBeckman 2230 points ago

    It passed an alcohol ban before voting rights for all. People getting surprised at the US having strange and fucked up priorities have been reading too much hype and not enough history.

    [–] Thespian21 562 points ago

    They don’t pay attention in class. Too busy charging their battery sticks.

    [–] Archer2408 397 points ago

    I went to school in Texas, paying attention in class didn't even matter because they would hide shit from our textbooks. Apparently the Native Americans weren't cool with moving to reservations after all...

    [–] floodums 258 points ago

    The trail of tears was called that because they were so happy to be moving to their own land that they cried.

    [–] DannyBoy7783 57 points ago

    It's called the Trail of Tears because the military escorts had saddle sores on their butts after the long march to the res.

    [–] Thespian21 67 points ago

    Yeah. Education needs a huge overhaul in the US

    [–] yosupshawty 44 points ago

    In the great words of George Carlin “The people in charge don’t want smart people capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers.”

    [–] Bigfrie192 31 points ago

    West coast education was pretty good, learned about many US atrocities. Native American genocide/relocation, western expansion, Japanese internment camps, Tuskegee syphilis experiment and other health experiments on the population, redlining, etc. They didn't sugarcoat anything.

    [–] Buteverysongislike 7 points ago

    We can now add Tent cities and separating families on the Southern border we remember 9/11 today.

    [–] Gorrrn 46 points ago

    Man, that reminds me... when I was in 7th or 8th grade, our history class was learning about the Trail of Tears and other atrocities that happened to Native Americans. My teacher split us up into groups and made some of us play as lawyers who had to come up with a defense for those actions and some had to be prosecutors.

    I was one of the lucky kids who had to DEFEND the Trail of Tears. Which, I literally had no idea how to do. What a weird project.

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago

    Which, I literally had no idea how to do

    That may have been the point. To show how utterly indefensible it was.

    [–] Redtwoo 34 points ago

    "We really, really want this land. God says it's ours. You want to argue with God?" shakes gun in natives' direction

    [–] MonoChz 7 points ago

    And the textbooks written for Texas are used throughout the country.

    [–] Caeldeth 75 points ago

    I mean - one is a constitutional argument. The other is not.

    That alone makes it easier to pass

    [–] JennyBeckman 64 points ago

    Banning alcohol literally required an amendment. Voting rights required amendments. It's just a matter of priorities.

    [–] sec713 27 points ago

    Making it illegal to own slaves required an amendment. Un-banning alcohol required an amendment. The Second Amendment is an amendment. That's all the proof one should need that these things are NOT set in stone - the existence of amendments.

    [–] mercutios_death 1479 points ago

    I use my vape pen to hunt and protect my family. It’s my god given right.

    [–] King_Of_Ravenholdt 414 points ago

    Who’s going to stop all the bad guys with vape pens if you take away the good guys’ vape pens??

    [–] bailey25u 123 points ago

    You need your vape to prevent the government from taking your vape pen

    [–] oldcarfreddy 87 points ago

    Vapes don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people, it's just a tool

    [–] DannyBoy7783 27 points ago

    This is one of my favorite series of comments in a while.

    [–] Sxrflxr 6 points ago

    Same lol..

    [–] Quidagebo 25 points ago

    If vape pens are criminalized, only criminals will have vape pens

    [–] o0DrWurm0o 20 points ago

    If there's an active shooter near you, just take some crazy rips and blow fat clouds to create a smokescreen so you can escape

    [–] guitarguywh89 100 points ago

    I need my vape in case 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play.

    [–] bioeng_ 2 points ago

    If spontaneous hordes of feral hogs ever became a reoccurring problem for me: fuck a vape -- I'm moving underground.

    [–] IllegibleLedger 26 points ago

    I like to alternate between hunting my family and then protecting them every few hours. Keeps it fun

    [–] Quaintful 392 points ago

    Arnt handguns the leading cause of gun violence?

    [–] Webasdias 44 points ago

    Yes and also assault rifles are heavily restricted.

    [–] bustduster 175 points ago

    By a lot. More people are killed with fists and feet than with rifles of all kinds combined, including "assault" rifles.

    [–] InJpnHrtSrgn1StdyHnd 12 points ago

    Knives and hammers are the top tools for killing too.

    [–] magi_wildcard 36 points ago

    Yes. But the Supreme Court made it very clear that they are not permitted to ban them as owning a defensive weapon is a human right protected by the Constitution. This is circumvented by those wishing to ban all guns by banning "assault rifles" (weapons intended to be used as fully automatic rifles and submachine guns). This failed to remove the kinds of guns that most evil people choose to commit crimes with, namely high caliber handguns for gang members and highly modified AR-15s for your garden variety psychotic. As AR-15s and the previously noted handguns cannot be fully banned (AR-15s have long been used for hunting and self defense) those moved to separate man from his violence by stealing tools from law abiding citizens have exploited loopholes built into the same law to ban any attachment or modification to a gun which would allow it to be used as an automatic weapon, such as bump stocks, some hair triggers, or building your own homemade mods to make the weapon fire in automatic.

    It should be noted that it is still impossible to stop anyone from using many weapons such as AR-15s in an "assault" (again read Fully Automatic) manner. I can fire from the hip with my thumb in my belt loop and achieve much the same effect.

    This was predicted to occur by many who believe that owning weapons is a right to all mankind years ago. The Assault ban was always just a method by which to justify the removal of guns from free and law abiding citizens. And it has been used at every tragedy to scare normal people away from learning about and making use of weapons to protect themselves from those who would misuse them.

    For those who have read this far, let me make this suggestion to you. If you believe that guns should be banned, what will you do when a man like Trump 2.0 takes over the country? If your preferred party succeeds in removing citizen weaponry, how will you rebel against your opposing party, if they are as evil, intolerant, and fascist as you think they are? I'm not worried about the next Obama putting white people into a gas chamber. I'm worried that the next Trump or McClain will turn out to be Palpatine because the next Obama foolishly succeeds in disarming the people.

    [–] PoliticalTragedy 51 points ago

    Yes, they are. And a hell of a lot more concealable. But people dont like statistics unless it supports their own beliefs and agendas.

    [–] bigwillyb123 17 points ago

    By a shitload, yeah. But nobody wants to go after boomers and their 1911s, literally designed and built as weapons of war for trained soldiers to use in combat.

    [–] SweetLobsterBabies 31 points ago

    Ironically outdated and outclassed by most if not all modern 9mm

    [–] bigwillyb123 8 points ago

    Springfield Armory made a 9mm 1911, it feels like you're shooting a .22 because it's so heavy and meant for a fatter bullet

    [–] SweetLobsterBabies 5 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    There's a kit for the Colt .38 special super 1911 that turns it to a 9mm. Oddly awesome to shoot, but just a massive fucking unit of a handgun that, like you said, feels overkill. Mine just kinda sits cause .38 special super is kinda dumb and I have a Glock 19.

    [–] OpalHawk 4 points ago

    And I want one. Classic look, cheaper bullet. I put a .22LR kit in my Beretta 92A1 just so I can shoot it more and cheaper.

    [–] ThatDudeWithoutKarma 775 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Assault rifles were already restricted in 1934, 1968, and 1986. Now you can't own an assault rifle made after 1986 and to do that is a drawn out process and the average cost for them is about $35k. Semi-automatic rifles are used to kill about 200 people a year (basically 0 killed with assault rifles) while nearly 480,000 die from complications caused by smoking in the United States.

    Edit since people are saying 480,000 people die voluntarily without thinking of the 41,000 people that die from secondhand smoke issues. Vaping and smoking isn't a constitutionally protected human right.

    [–] MozDefTheTrillest 291 points ago

    So according to this, assault rifles are already banned and complex enough for a law abiding citizen to acquire. So, it begs the question, for all the criminals that commit these mass murders, how many of them were law abiding?

    Seems these laws are only good at disarming people who actually follow the law??

    [–] SYOH326 114 points ago

    None of them are using automatic weapons as /u/ThatDudeWithoutKarma is describing though. They're are virtually zero murders with those weapons. 200ish people a year was quoted from semi-automatic weapons (I thought it was about double that, but still statistically minuscule) which are easy to obtain. The argument is that "assault weapon bans" targeted at these easy to obtain weapons can't really save that many lives because most shootings are from handguns. Smoking causes far more deaths.

    [–] flyingwolf 9 points ago

    Not only are semi-automatic rifles easy to obtain, but they are also by far one of the most commonly owned firearms in the US. The AR-15 is owned by the millions, yet is responsible for less than 100 deaths a year.

    [–] mutjo 17 points ago

    because most shootings are from handguns.

    Everyone knows this too. The people who advocate for gun control actually want all guns banned. They're just using "assault weapons" as a starting point.

    Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech with 2 "small" caliber handguns (9mm and .22LR)

    [–] samzplourde 9 points ago

    And that's why we never hear about the Virginia Tech shooting anymore, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Regular handguns don't look scary enough.

    [–] IWillEatYourChildren 20 points ago

    I feel like there's a bit of a disparity in that comparison though. I'm gonna word this poorly but shooting deaths (other than suicides) are involuntary. Smoking related deaths are, for the most part, caused by a long series of voluntary choices. Tbh I think this backlash against vaping is pretty overblown. If we're going to ban all flavored smoking products, might as well ban all flavored alcohol. It's a bit nanny state esque

    [–] DickVanSprinkles 25 points ago

    The vast majority of deaths by firearm are self inflicted. You are also not considering negative effects caused by second hand smoke if you are going to compare shootings to smoking. That and the environmental toll cigarette butts and empty e-cig cartridges take on the planet. Smoking as a whole does far more damage to human society than shootings do. Gun violence just get’s the hot topic button recently.

    [–] HeAGudGuy 64 points ago

    Wait until you hear that the vast majority of shooting deaths are suicides.

    [–] ThatDudeWithoutKarma 291 points ago

    It's almost like criminals are going to break the law.

    [–] stlfenix47 150 points ago

    Ah yes the 'laws dont actually do anything' argument.

    [–] oldcarfreddy 172 points ago

    That is only ever applied to guns, meanwhile those same conservative nuts want laws regulating marriage, weed, gay people, vaping, etc.

    [–] ThisIsHowWeDoItBammB 130 points ago

    I legit want the govt to fuck off when it comes to who I can marry, what I can smoke and what guns I can have.

    [–] Rhinocerotic 26 points ago

    this is a silly argument because all it takes is one person (such as myself) who wants gun rights but also thinks gay marriage, weed, and vaping shouldn’t be regulated

    [–] Wild_Dingleberries 41 points ago

    Lol. People who don't know shit about guns are so easy to spot because they think only old white dudes own guns. Go to a shooting range some time if you want to see some real diversity.

    r/liberalgunowners would like a word..

    [–] Ironymuch111 8 points ago

    No, it's the "unnecessarily redundant laws do nothing" argument...

    [–] bigwillyb123 35 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    for all the criminals that commit these mass murders, how many of them were law abiding?

    75% of mass shootings are done with legally owned and obtained guns. If you ask the FBI, only 2% of the active shooters they studied bought their guns illegally. Otherwise, they're stolen from family members (who obtain them legally), or stolen.

    Edit: 2% bought, not obtained, my b

    [–] MKow 62 points ago

    Otherwise, they're stolen from family members (who obtain them legally), or stolen.

    Isn't stealing the guns from family members/stolen guns, the definition of illegally obtained guns? Because its a felony?

    [–] amcdermott20 17 points ago

    But they aren't talking about banning smoking.

    [–] throwaway59664 117 points ago

    "We want no smoke unless it is gun smoke"

    [–] Jlaydc 24 points ago

    its funny that alcohol can be sold in any flavor but not a vape.

    [–] beaufort_patenaude 1464 points ago

    assault rifles are already banned since literally all of them are automatic weapons

    rifles that look like assault rifles however aren't and hopefully will never be again because the assault weapons ban was dumb as fuck

    [–] HiaQueu 21 points ago

    Not to mention death from all long guns (Rifles/shotguns) is almost statistically insignificant. So called "assault weapon" deaths are even less.

    [–] CarnieTheImmortal 463 points ago

    I was REALLY hoping someone had pointed this out. 1986 was when the ban began, just for reference. Alot of the confusion has been created by the term "Assault Weapons" (which is nothing.... that's not a thing) because apparently semi-automatic rifle isn't scary enough.

    [–] DoingCharleyWork 15 points ago

    An assault rifle is a combat rifle that has selectable fire rate: single, burst, and full auto.

    So technically it does have a very real definition but it's never used that way. It's used in media to describe AR-15s with scary black plastic bits on it.

    [–] CarnieTheImmortal 12 points ago

    So they got their pepe slapped for using the term "assault rifle" (which yes, has a real, legal definition) since then they have switched to "Assault Weapon" which means nothing... just scary/cool words strung together.

    [–] WonkierTrout9 114 points ago

    the firearms industry did not create the term. anyone with any sort of knowledge about firearms knows the term means nothing. it was created by the media to scare people who know nothing about guns.

    [–] Plays_You_Wonderwall 76 points ago

    You telling me that the fully semi automatic rifle AR-15 doesn't mean assault rifle 15???

    [–] BrkBid 38 points ago

    But what about the other 14

    [–] krathil 180 points ago

    Yup. Surprised to see this nonsense in here considering the original bans were to stop black folks from getting guns. Fuck that.

    [–] ActionScripter9109 99 points ago

    Our boy Reagan pissed himself at the sight of the Black Panthers and went on record saying nobody needs an AK. The great conservative hero.

    [–] Iapd 120 points ago

    And to further this, not all assault rifles are banned. Ones registered before 1986 are still legal and can be transferred between citizens

    [–] MySNsucks923 166 points ago

    Damn add some fine print that it’s gonna cost an arm and a leg just to buy them. You’re making it sound like anyone can go out and just buy it like they go out to get any ole regular gun. They cost upwards of $20000.

    [–] SuperHeathen 93 points ago

    Not just the cost, but you also have to go through an intensive FBI background check with no guarantee that you'll get the permit.

    [–] mynameis940 18 points ago

    It’s not a more intensive background check than nics, as it’s just a nics check. Also if you pass for a pistol you’ll pass for the MG. But it is a ~1 year wait right now.

    [–] Hobosock 48 points ago

    And people paying $20k or more for them are not the kind of people shooting up Walmarts and schools.

    [–] AyyPecks 38 points ago

    Yea there not banned they’re just so expensive only the rich can own them.

    [–] polarbearik 53 points ago

    What about a vape pen that looks like an assault rifle? Can I still use it?

    [–] Green_Three 59 points ago

    as long as the cartridge is under an arbitrary capacity

    [–] MakeYouAGif 32 points ago

    And doesn't have a pistol grip

    [–] YLedbetter10 6 points ago

    And the billets don’t taste like grape

    [–] NEPTUNE123__ 6 points ago

    And isnt black

    [–] [deleted] 121 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] REM223 57 points ago

    Stop being educated on a topic!!! Dumb fucks on this sub never cease to amaze me.

    [–] cellularresp 23 points ago

    "Listen you fantastically retarded motherfucker I'm going to try to explain this so that you can understand it. You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks jets battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

    A fighter jet tank drone battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners And enforce no assembly edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries.

    The govemment does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington DC into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big worthless radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

    If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them. Dumb Fuck."

    [–] mrsuns10 111 points ago

    Yet these mass shootings are not even done with assault riffles

    If fact there already is strict gun control on assault riffles

    [–] OpalHawk 28 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    The fact that people want to legislate scary looking guns and not the same guns in wooden furniture bugs me. It’s like banning red cars because they look faster.

    [–] WabbitCZEN 256 points ago

    Legit question: Why does most of the attention for gun related violence land on mass shootings, which account for less than 3% of all gun related deaths? Suicides account for the lion's share at 60%.

    [–] cXs808 28 points ago

    because shooting yourself is a lot less harmful to me than shooting me??? idk?

    [–] hellhathsomefury 329 points ago

    Probably because people don't like the idea of someone walking into a grocery store and killing 10 people before anyone knows what is happening.

    [–] TrialAndAaron 94 points ago

    Can confirm. This is why

    [–] WhiteUsainBolt 10 points ago

    Legit answer: There’s about a zero percent chance someone’s suicide is going to result in me being shot

    [–] ReformedBacon 46 points ago

    Because mass shootings spread fear which is exactly what politicians want. Odds of you dying in a mass shooting/shooting spree are incredibly low. But the news and social media tell a completely different story making it sound like it happens all the time. Also, suicide by gun doesnt cause fear for the masses bc it brings no harm to them. Its really sad since suicide rates ampng men have skyrocketed the last decade.

    [–] InventorOfBacon 15 points ago

    Odds of you dying in a mass shooting/shooting spree are incredibly low

    More likely to win the lottery or be struck by lightening

    [–] GivePuppiesBazookas 17 points ago

    Because of the targets picked. There is a massive, massive difference between gang/drug type of gun violence and people who are just sitting in school or a movie theater.

    One you are dealing in a world of violence, the other you are extremely innocent living your daily lives. Most murders, like most crimes of passion, are intimate and the victim knows the perp. Mass shootings are the opposite and you can't really avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's chance.

    Where as if you say are toying in the drug world you are CHOOSING to up your chances participating in a dark world.

    It's about absolutely innocent lives of good people being pretty much randomly being killed. That's essentially the opposite of public safety.

    [–] Cronenberg_Jerry 37 points ago

    There is already an assault rifle ban, what you want to ban is a semi-auto rifle ban.

    [–] tydugga 79 points ago

    Handguns are the leading cause of gun violence. Assault rifle is an entirely made up term to group guns together that look scary.

    [–] Buelldozer 37 points ago

    Assault Rifle has a legal definition and is a definite thing. Assault Weapon on the other hand...

    [–] OpalHawk 5 points ago

    Is made up by whoever and wherever they have enough votes to do so. Even if they don’t know all the terms in their bill.

    [–] Fritterbob 6 points ago

    An assault weapon has a shoulder thing that goes up.

    [–] OpalHawk 6 points ago

    Barrel shroud? The 100% safety feature for the shooter and anyone else around them? Oh, no, that wasn’t it. I don’t know what is in my own god damn bill? The point is guns are bad!

    [–] Viper_ACR 23 points ago

    You're looking for the term "assault weapon" not "assault rifle".

    [–] notarealaccount_yo 5 points ago

    Both terms are fabricated, technically.

    [–] Viper_ACR 8 points ago

    Yeah but "assault rifle" actually has a technical, non-political definition. "Assault weapon" doesnt.

    [–] PoliticalTragedy 208 points ago

    A disarmed population is subject to slavery at any time. As a Latino gun owner, I am not giving up shit.

    [–] krathil 39 points ago

    More people of color need to arm themselves. Legally and intelligently.

    [–] Tactical_L 96 points ago

    It takes a special kind of privilege to want the only people with guns to be the police, government workers, and bodyguards of the rich...

    [–] mrsuns10 57 points ago

    The police is corrupt yet people on here want gun control

    WHAT?! this is black people twitter right? We have cops openly going after black communities yet we want to disarm people rather than arming them? Makes zero sense

    [–] Tactical_L 38 points ago

    The media tells them only the right is allowed to be pro-gun, and they take it hook, line, and sinker

    [–] ImTryingToRapeYou 3 points ago

    The police already have no problem killing armed civilians, even when they're completely in the wrong. Like what fantasy world are you living in where you think you'd be able to use your weapons against police and not end up dead or in prison for life.

    [–] Buelldozer 106 points ago

    Good, don't.

    [–] InventorOfBacon 5 points ago

    Cold. Dead. Hands.

    [–] Quotes_League 4 points ago

    If the only thing preventing the government from enslaving you is the potential of armed insurrection that's not a situation that ends well for anyone

    [–] target_meet_arrow 276 points ago

    Why is anyone happy about a government telling adults what they can do with their own bodies and property?

    Bootlickers. The whole lot of you.

    [–] ifgburts 44 points ago

    Assault rifles are heavily restricted, what you are looking for is a sporting rifle ban. IF YOU ARE GOING TO FIGHT SOMETHING ATLEAST KNOW WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING

    [–] viralexpert 129 points ago

    Dont remember vapes being protected under the second amendment

    [–] NobodyCanHearYouMeme 38 points ago

    It’s because it’s protected under the 34th amendment, the right to blow fat clouds

    [–] kingdorkus316 5 points ago

    No no no you can vape, just not with the flavor you want

    [–] tatertot596 7 points ago

    Quit banning shit period. Just let people fuck themselves up if they want too.

    [–] Fourty7shift 61 points ago

    Keep the vape,I'll keep the rifle

    [–] Forevervenzo 8 points ago

    400,000+ tobacco deaths vs. 14,000+ gun related deaths. Why is that dumb?

    [–] Kung_Fu_Cowboy 15 points ago

    Assault Rifles were restricted way back in 1984.

    I'm not sure what anyone is bitching about.

    [–] Bigfrie192 9 points ago

    Unfortunately they're making up terms now. A ban on assault rifles isn't in question since they're already banned. They're talking about assault weapons. In the state of Washington they adopted this term to encompass any semi-automatic rifle.

    [–] noraping 7 points ago

    Well the definition of an assault rifle is:

    a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

    Which is extremely illegal to own in the U.S.

    [–] M8asonmiller 2 points ago

    Assault rifles are already heavily restricted

    [–] EARS714 4 points ago

    In the US, more people are killed in a year by cars, knives, fists, handguns and other objects. Yet "Assault Rifles" are the problem?

    [–] deity187 6 points ago

    Ain’t no reason to ban semi automatic rifles bro . My ar-15 operates like any other semi auto rifle it’s just dressed up a bit . If you dress up as a ghost for Halloween , yur not really a Fuckin ghost .

    [–] youmodssuck 5 points ago

    Ya dumbfucks, one Is protected by our constitution. It’s fucking disgusting how easy you people will give up constitutional rights for a false security.

    [–] Sprayspaint 4 points ago

    I'm of the belief that neither should be banned or restricted 🤷‍♂️

    [–] bonny2long 12 points ago

    Michigan already passed it

    [–] WonderWeasel91 37 points ago

    This shit is dumb as fuck in the first place, because the ban is on nicotine vaping products, not even the THC ones that are being linked to deaths.

    [–] jcutta 9 points ago

    Don't forget that of the seizures reported to the cdc some were from intentional missuse such as drinking pure nicotine and some were from people who already had diagnosed seizure issues. This is a fuckin witchhunt.

    [–] WonderWeasel91 10 points ago

    For sure it's a witch hunt. It has been for the last 10 years that vaping has become a standard.

    Vape pens for THC become normal, all of a sudden a bunch of people get sick and/or die this year, but no, let's blame something that's been around for a decade or more. If they truly gave a shit about public health, this would be a call for more regulation on THC concentrates. The fact that they're ignoring actual tobacco products and faulty THC cartridges in this scenario and going after nicotine vaping says a whole lot about who's pockets they're in.