• EmailPinterestRedditTumblr Report
    • Copy link
    • Pinterest
  • 1057 comments

    • All gun restrictions are infringements
      memrman 30 aug
      1.5K Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Unban all full auto weapons right now
      774 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Full auto AR-15 here I come🤤
      702 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • That means full auto bans are unconstitutional.
      hulkdong 30 aug
      673 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Shall not be infringed
      617 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • That’s literally judicial review. I’m sure everyone learned this in high school.
      454 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • All drugs are legal
      428 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Technically true, which is why laws and statutes can be challenged in court. If there's sufficient reason that it violates the constitution, it goes to the state supreme court. If they deem it violates the con it gets sent to the Surpreme Court of the nation where they interpret the Const.
      Cthulu120 30 aug
      365 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Man I just want to stop mentally deranged people and people with a record of violent crimes from owning guns. Everyone else should be able to own any firearm if any size and any amount
      278 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The FBI is repugnant
      CVNT5 30 aug
      178 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Except you don't decide what is against the constitution, the supreme Court does.
      159 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • And per the constitution there are nine people who's job is to determine that, not some idiots on the internet
      razz23 30 aug
      23 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • I’ve been thinking about getting a gun but I live in an apartment and have nowhere to keep it
      14 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Can we use that against the politicians to make them accountable, not able to stay in office more than 4 years, 8 total (like the PRESIDENT) and not able to vote for their own raises and other BS!? 😡. 💞
      missnay 30 aug
      10 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • While technically true the only people who can enforce that are the cia and the fbi. Other than that if the state makes it legal the cops cant do anything about it.
      7 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The problem is people interpret the constitution differently
      brizza 30 aug
      8 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Half of them don’t even know what repugnant means
      AutisM0 30 aug
      6 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • I mean... do you know what our Supreme Court does???
      UrAnDumb 30 aug
      7 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • I don't think you understand what that is or what it does
      lemilian 30 aug
      7 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Marbury v. Madison is about judicial review
      4 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Currently Repugnant means ‘extremely distasteful; unacceptable’. But 200 years ago the definition was ‘contrary, contradictory,’ from Old French repugnant
      couger1 30 aug
      2 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • This is true but it has to be decided by the supereme court that it's unconstitutional, because if everyone was just deciding certain laws are unconstitutional we would have a huge problem
      yrtesd 30 aug
      2 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Making ammendments is the most consitutional thing you can do. It was written into the constituation that it should be flexible over time.
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The constitution doesn’t go against age restrictions, that’s why you have to be 21 to drink. Wish y’all fought this hard for anyone that wasn’t white.
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Marbury v Madison established the supreme courts ultimate decision making power about what is or isn’t constitutional from congress or the executive branch.
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Yeah but thomas Edison is dead what is he gonna do if we violate it?
      Wertia 31 aug
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Damn did y’all not graduate?
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • is this not common knowledge?
      _Goddess_ 31 aug
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Yeah that's why we elect Supreme Court justices to resolve such incidents. Make it go viral so people understand how our government works.
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Yeah but the average citizen doesn’t get to decide which laws are repugnant to the Constitution.
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Why would we make this viral? Literally anybody who has ever looked at the constitution knows this. This is one of the main things about the constitution, it’s common knowledge. The Supreme Court is literally there to carry out this job.
      jynflyn1 30 aug
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • For the idiot liberals, repugnant means, "in conflict with" or "incompatible with"
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Yes, but also the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, so what you think it says doesn’t matter
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Still won't let me get a semi-automatic aa-12 because it's technically a machine gun some how
      Matt707 30 aug
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • No kidding, Sherlock, everyone knows that. That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court, to ensure laws are constitutional.
      noondeer 30 aug
      2 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Ah shit I don't think you really want this, this means that gays can get married, people can burn the flag and abortion is legal nationwide. Y'all really don't know how many state laws violate the constitution
      eeg4565 30 aug
      2 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The Supreme Court gets to decide which laws are repugnant to the Constitution. That is literally what judicial review is
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Murphy v Madison gave us so much legislation and precedence.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • So amendments are null?
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • i disagree
      1 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Repugnant is an opinionated word. This means nothing.
      KatieZ 30 aug
      14 Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Not a lot of a verdict from one judge
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • That's in the constitution I thought this was well known already
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • American government be like, "uhhhh... no."
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Sweet boys let’s go get the full autos and suppressors back out
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The supremacy clause is fucking important no matter what these dumbasses think
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The problem here is that the word “repugnant” is subjective. Who gets to decide what is or is not repugnant?
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Who mixes ketchup and ranch?🤢
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • If the law doesn't apply to the chief executive why would anyone else obey it
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Make it go viral. Lol you guys are not gonna do anything except, eat, shit and fall asleep.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Patriot Act niggas be like😳
      Clem 2 sep
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • No officer this machine gun is legal look at this ifunny post
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Cranch
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Take that California for saying Christian's cant praise and worship
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Brown finger
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The commies have bought alot of ifunny ads lately
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The director of the BATF, Stephen Higgins, testified that the misuse of legally-owned fully-automatic firearms was “so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem.” Hughes amendment was completely uncalled for and is a direct violation of the second amendment
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • FUCK ATF COME AND GET EM FED BOIS
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • We have changed the constitution 100 of times
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • A different time.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The laws in question still have to go through judicial review. You can't break the law and say it's unconditional and expect to be let go.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Any examples?
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • It’s funny because restricting the media would violate their first amendment.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • I feel this should be brought to our attention more for those getting their voting rights taken away for protesting rather than guns
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Too bad the second ammendment has a clause that states weapons in use for state malitias, and not just flexing power on your neighbors.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • The thing is that the laws are still valid until challenged this is why the judicial branch has the power of constitutional review so even if a law blatantly violates the constituion you have to sue the government
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Fuck the CIA and fuck the FBI, they are criminal organizations
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • *slow clap* tell me more Captain Obvious.
      iFundz 1 sep
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Actually all laws made by bureaucrats are null because they are not elected officials
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Whether something is distasteful is subjective. Sorry you’re not as clever as you thought.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Sucks to be a Democrap!
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • This isn’t iFunny anymore, it’s iPolitics
      EmanRapp 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Too bad the only way to overrule that is to take it to the Supreme Court.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • All I saw was cranch at first
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Shall not be infringed fed boi
      grobo04 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Am i the only one realizing ifunny is an app by a Russian developer featuring right winged ideals as memes to alter the perspective of its audience against the other political party? I implore you to go ahead and write a comment in support of the left on this app, it will get “eaten by a black hole”
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • This also means that every law that exists today has, to some extent, been proven to be not repugnant to the Constitution
      Cards48 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Supreme court does this already but okay
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Thats the whole point of the constitution, to spell out that we have certain inaliable basic rights, and if any law goes against any of them, it is automatically null. Different states make different laws, but no matter what state you live in, you get the rights of the constitution for free.
      tazz250 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • 17k likes and I’ll bet this has never been featured.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Kamala Harris wants to ban assault rifles
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Get rid of the shit bags 🎒
      butwhynow 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • It means a lot. The people doing this, like to control. They also like money, this gives them wins, no matter if they agree with the laws they pass. They say no to guns and armor but own it themselves
      butwhynow 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Yeah but that’s not for you to decide it’s for the Supreme Court and until the Supreme Court makes a decision it’s still law so what point do you think you’re making
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Not how the law works. This is as bad as “sovereign citizens”
      albinopig 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • That line is just a means for the supreme court to make itself the ultimate judge of what's "repugnant".
      isaaxz321 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • How much more viral can you get than written into history? If people don't know then it's their fault
      LitAsDuck 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Yeah, I wish it were that simple. People just want the kardasians, and can barely see past their rent to grasp the big picture. The dumbing down of America has been a success... and it's sad and I stopped paying attention and just started living like this is allll GTA.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Some people think a Twitter post will change anything. The gov don't give a fuck about that otherwise the ban wouldn't have made it through.
      Basquiat 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • I wouldn’t bum rush the judge’s bench waving a ruling from 1803 trying to get out of a charge...
      Githyanki 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Jesus just take a high school gov course
      Frylock 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • I’m glad I live in Canada.
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Destroy the homeowners association and let me grow wild grass in my fucking lawn
      notrenite 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Cranch
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Such a round fingernail, oddly satisfying
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show
    • Repugnant : distasteful or unacceptable.( that covers about every law out there!)
      hawl 31 aug
      Copy FacebookPinterestTwitterEmail {{ shortRepliesCount }}
      Show

iFunny plug-in will teach your phone to smile

get on the iFunny app to roast them

All content related issues will be solved right here.
After all necessary information is provided, of course:

Complete the form below to notify iFunny of a claim relating to your intellectual property rights and content or some technical inconvenience with the service.
(Positive and productive feedback is appreciated as well).

Your details

Your relationships to the rights holder

Type of claim

Select
Copyright Trademark Nazi-related Offensive Technical difficulties Other
Describe the issue in detail. Please be specific.
Feeling poetic today? Feel free to provide more information
By clicking on "Submit" below, you are certifying the following statements:
  • I state that I have a good faith belief that use of the work(s) in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
  • I state that the information in this notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that I am the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, or an authorized agent for the owner.
  • I give my permission to pass my contact information to the alleged infringing party.

Privacy notice

For a list of the categories of personal information that we collect from you and how we use that information, please review iFunny’s privacy policy