Upload
Login or register
x

Arguments make me hard

shared Rightwing Neal; photo.
WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN?"
You need mese tor mags. was 8 madman;
This one no my H. who :
or Ina tabla.
This one for nouns! , forman
and to maven! atrocities.
Unlike . Comment. Share
it You like this.
T This is the one I need in Canada because only licensed people
can bigguns that are only meant for hunting and the clip size is limited.
Like . Reply. in . or hrs
I have never once in my entire life felt the need, desire, or
even whim to hold a gun, let alone own one.
Like . Reply. 14 hrs
an Hide 24 Replies
I That' s because you live underneath a blanket
provided by misgovernment that could be taken away at any point
Like . Reply. yhr
I'll Let' s keep blanket.
...
+298
Views: 18817
Favorited: 33
Submitted: 01/11/2016
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to mdizzlethreeonefiv

Comments(224):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
123>
[ 224 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
138 comments displayed.
Reply
+62
User avatar #1 - sinery (01/11/2016) [-]
I swear to god you ********************** if you're going to post this ******* **** will you at least crop the damn thing properly.
Reply
+39
User avatar #46 - chrysaor (01/11/2016) [-]
Personally, I think people who think their guns are going to help them that much in self-defense are missing some fairly crucial facts.
1. If you're storing a gun in your house properly, then there's no way you'd be able to get to it in time to protect yourself. Guns should be stored unloaded and in a locked safe where children can't get to them by accident. What, you think the robber is gonna be kind enough to let you go and grab it? Besides, most break ins happen in the day, when people are at work or school anyway

2. Funnily enough, GUNS ARE DANGEROUS TOOLS. Unless you're actually trained properly in their use and practice consistently, you're going to miss your target. A lot. Even trained professionals miss a lot of the time during actual firefights. And when you're inside your house or in a crowded public place, that missed shot doesn't just go away, it hits something else. Sometimes you'll get lucky and nobody gets hurt. Sometimes you'll end up shooting your wife or child or some random passerby instead.

Frankly, if your actual concern is about your home being broken into, buy a security system. If you're worried about public shootings, well frankly you'd just be adding more random bullets flying around getting people killed.

Now if your reasons for wanting a gun is either "hunting" or "just to shoot it, because it's fun/for marksman competitions", that's totally fine. But you should be prepared to sign out a bunch of paperwork and/or get a background check to make sure that's what you're using it for. Because honestly that's what most proponents of gun control want. They don't want to take away our guns, they just want to make sure any random ****** can't grab one off the shelf like it's a pack of gum.
Reply
0
#190 to #46 - anon (01/12/2016) [-]
Eh my biggest problem is the removal of said weapons is hard and would result in radicals firing at officials unnecessarily. My family all put together own around 31 unregistered firearms collectively and I know some of those would be stupid enough to fight over them.
Reply
-3
User avatar #84 to #46 - thefallenlord (01/11/2016) [-]
1.) Don't have wife / gf, don't have kids, nor do I plan to have any. I would still like to defend my life thank you very much.

2.) Cars are dangerous and knifes are dangerous as well. You can crack open your skull in a shower. There are million and one ways of killing or hurting yourself in the safety of your own home even without a gun. Also I would like to think that we (and by "we" I mean people eligible for purchase of firearms) are all responsible adults that can make decisions for ourselves, accepting risks, responsibilities and consequences on the individual basis.

I kinda agree with your point on shooting in public spaces tho.
Reply
+1
User avatar #56 to #46 - vladhellsing (01/11/2016) [-]
Home Invasion | How to protect yourself Please enjoy this safe & sensible drill for defending your home against intruders with a firearm.
Reply
+8
User avatar #58 to #56 - chrysaor (01/11/2016) [-]
Thank you, that's very informative.

Although to clarify my point a little, that video is full of things which most people would not know or think of. Honestly, a lot of people are really dumb.

I'm not saying it's impossible to use a gun to defend your home from invasion. It's simply that, in order to do so properly and safely, you must be trained and be very well practiced, and most people simply won't be. I am uncertain on the feasibility of this, but perhaps one of the requirements for being allowed to purchase a gun would be completion of a course which teaches gun safety, practical use of firearms (including defending a home), as well as qualify as a marksman at a bare minimum. perhaps also require them to qualify every year to ensure their skills remain sharp . Hell, we have stupid overkill training for something as comparatively simple as driving, it's not too much to ask that gun owners need to pass a basic competency test.
Reply
+11
User avatar #62 to #58 - vladhellsing (01/11/2016) [-]
I totally agree. Guns are like cars; they are practical although dangerous pieces of equipment that require a trained, licensed professional in order to operate. Unfortunately gun regulations in America (not on the guns themselves but rather the requirements to own them) are so lax that they often fall into the wrong hands - fuelled even more by American gun culture (and American culture in general). And I'm not even talking about illegal gun ownership here.

The way I see it, it's a cultural problem over there, not a problem with guns themselves. Americans see gun ownership as a "right", whereas in Slovenia (where Polenar Tactical, the guys who made that video, live) they see gun ownership as a "privilege". And you can own all kinds of guns there provided you have the right reason, anything from a handgun to a 30 round assault rifle. America needs to understand that just because you have a right doesn't mean you have a duty to own guns and that mentality must carry over to gun legislation.
Reply
+1
User avatar #88 to #58 - ishallsmiteyou (01/11/2016) [-]
I'll guarantee you that at least the majority of firearms owners are properly trained in their use for personal defense.
Reply
+1
User avatar #195 to #46 - mdizzlethreeonefiv [OP](01/12/2016) [-]
Just FYI

I, OP, am the hardcore conservative in the post. I HAVE been trained, I DO practice consistently, and I keep my loaded gun right on my bed in a safe when I'm sleeping or on my hip when I'm just around my house. Just HAVING the gun, and it being visible, is such a powerful tool in and of itself. I sincerely hope that all I have to do is point my gun at someone and then they piss off, because I don't know the circumstances that they live in. If I'm in a convenience store and a guy with a mask comes in waving a gun around, I don't know if he was coerced into doing this, I don't know if he is just trying to feed his family, I just don't have enough information. BUT, if he points that gun at some 9 year old kid or something, I will not hesitate to put as many hollow points as it takes into him. I have prepared myself as much as I can for that moment and to be honest nothing is going to prepare me for the gravity of taking another man's life. I carry hollow points to reduce overpenetration, I aim center mass to both kill and reduce my chances of missing, I won't be shooting at a target further than 50 feet from me because that's the longest most of my training has been at. There is so much literature on the subject, and I hero worship Massad Ayoob.
Reply
+3
#139 to #46 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Not everyone has kids

Get training
Reply
+3
User avatar #143 to #46 - hatsune (01/11/2016) [-]
home invasions, when the home owners are at home, are much lower in the US than in other nations, because we have guns.
children can be educated about guns, and the safety issues are minimal.
accidental gun deaths by children are very low, and a lot of people don't have children anyway.

_ Sometimes you'll end up shooting your wife or child or some random passerby instead._
this literally never happens.
most defensive gun uses don't even involve shooting.
presenting a firearm will deescalate most situations
you don't have to be trained.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Reply
+1
#167 to #143 - traceirving (01/11/2016) [-]
kron4.com/2015/10/28/gun-fired-accidentally-goes-through-wall-injures-victim/
That literally took 5 seconds to find on google, and I was looking for a specific story. I found ********* more anyway.

Unless you're using the tumblr version of the word 'literally', you're wrong.

Reply
0
User avatar #169 to #167 - hatsune (01/11/2016) [-]
negligent discharges
not defensive gun uses
Reply
+2
User avatar #172 to #46 - thejusticar (01/11/2016) [-]
1:loaded kept out of reach of children and teach them gun safety so they understand its a dangerous weapon and not a toy.

2:Lots of stuff is dangerous, most people aren't gonna fire blindly at crap like a ******* crazy ass ***** , which in term would lower the chance of randomly hitting your wife your child, another thing is that they are probably in a room with the other parent if someone has broken in, while the man of the house will get strapped and go find the cunt thats breaking in.

3: "oh no that man is killing innocent people, might as well just run away and let him keep going instead of firing back at him", someone isn't gonna fire like a maniac in a crowded mall if theres a bunch of innocent people, trained people who handle firearms more often will wait until a shot is clear then they will take it.


I do understand your thing about trying to keep them out of bad peoples hands but some of your "facts" aren't gonna help too much. there are still millions of guns around america right now and me having a pistol for home defense isn't going to harm anyone else. except many any dick waffles that try to break in to my house.
Reply
+139
#2 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
i used to be anti-gun because here in europe we had no need for weapons
since we had no immigration problems and our borders were under control the police and the military were the only ones that could carry weapons
as a result most incidents are just pathetic wiggers and ******* with knives
everything was well
until politicallycorrectfaggotopia AKA germany imported half of syria into europe
syria
a country infested with terrorists and extremists...
now we have terrorists with AK-47 shooting us, raping our women and brainwashing our people and the EU's retarded governaments to join/support their cause

i wish we had the abundance of guns america has right now
and trump instead of merkel
i also wish our people had the balls to stand for their country and their future generations
they are being taught to hate themselves for being white, their countries culture and to love merkel's favorite ice creams: arab and ****** flavour
Reply
0
User avatar #164 to #2 - paddypancake (01/11/2016) [-]
I dunno even if we have more migrants more guns means more guns for both sides. The guns are already in circulation in the US and will stay there so its better for the good guys to be able to get them but i have doubts about europe profiting from guns being more accecible, it always goes both ways. Could easily escalate the situation a bit more than comfortable.
Don't want to judge the immigrants personally here but no matter how you judge them i think more guns means more problems in europe. Not in the US though.
Reply
0
User avatar #191 to #2 - fiveblackmen (01/12/2016) [-]
I can understand your change of heart on gun control and your desire for different governmental leaders but you really don't want Trump. He says things for attention and not because he will actually do anything about it. He largely only appeals to the lowest common denominator because they are the only ones that are stupid enough to fall for the **** spewing from his mouth. I'm not saying this to try and sway you to the left or as a bash on the right. I am saying this because Trump would make a terrible president and almost any candidate on either side of this election would be better than him.
Reply
+1
#41 to #2 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
GIF
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image** tfw the EU are actually straight on helping all extremist muslim groups to do what they are born to do. To kill anybody who does not agree to a religious character. I wonder why left parties are not being shut down and their members not arrested for assisting acts of murder and other crimes. I don't want to live in Sweden anymore as it has become a rape carnival now that we have a massive idiot for president. And also the left party are directly helping ISIS to spread terror here as they offer "scarred returning isis members who "regret" beheading men, women and children for fun " a home and a job. No idea why nobody has talked about that since that sounds pretty ******* serious to me. I don't even take any offense for any "Sweden Yes" jokes because they are all true.
Reply
0
#47 to #41 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
okay mexico 2.0
Reply
+1
User avatar #116 to #2 - PlagueDoctor (01/11/2016) [-]
Money talks, bs walks. That's why they're importing these ******* cavemen into Europe. ******* cheap labour-force for y'all.
******* dammit, I'm moving to the country of hockey and maple syrup.
Reply
+7
#132 to #116 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Cheap labor for what? Where will you use such huge numbers of uneducated and unqualified people?
Reply
+2
#137 to #132 - lean (01/11/2016) [-]
Soon Germany shall create massive fair labor facilities where the uneducated and unqualified will be able to express their newfound freedom! These areas shall be the new pinnacle of manufacturing and industry in the world, and the workers will have the freedom to work overtime and live in communals with the whole family "just like home".
Reply
0
#174 to #137 - dannyredwizard (01/11/2016) [-]
I know you're joking but I'm hoping this happens. I know it won't though, Germany won't risk demonizing themselves again.
Reply
0
User avatar #207 to #132 - PlagueDoctor (01/12/2016) [-]
trash collection, cleaning, logistics plants,..
Reply
0
User avatar #203 to #132 - djmaryhikineet (01/12/2016) [-]
And most probably wont do work b/c they're so use to not working as they lived of there parents money, Germany is basically importing neets into the country. no matter how nice it is for them to do that, they literally are ******* themselves as the people cant do **** . why don't they ******* limit peoples entry if they are about to do work with a few exceptions for the sake of being nice
Reply
0
User avatar #144 to #132 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Native people have much higher standards of living and won't work for chump change. If the foreigners were vetted and integrated, they'd be demanding the same conditions. A bunch of unskilled fighting-age males means business can make ********* off of their manual labor.

It all boils down to money.
Reply
0
#149 to #144 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Depends. If someone is in corner, he will work for that change, also, i am willing to bet that there are labor laws.
Reply
0
User avatar #156 to #149 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
It's the problem of the hedonic treadmill. They're so used to living in ********* that what we'd consider ****** in our own nation seems peaceful and pleasant to them. We have the same problem in the US with Hispanic illegals. Labor laws don't matter when the people involved aren't full citizens.

The cultural conflicts aren't an externality, they're expected. It's what keeps the labor force separate.
Reply
0
#158 to #156 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
So you can freely employ Hispanics in companies?

Actually, my main gripe has always been that economic migrants get inside Eurozone together with refugees(or other way around since economical migrants are more numerous) and get the same benefits as refugees.
Reply
0
User avatar #162 to #158 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Not legally, but it still happens, and it's often considered economic suicide to stop it. The "too big to fail" effect.

That's also a fair complaint, but the economic migrants are ****** if none of them want to do any work because the short term relief is **** for anyone who doesn't really need it.
Reply
0
#168 to #162 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Germany had cheap labor force from other European countries, you know, the newly joined ones? From what i understood, they didn't need unqualified workforce that doesn't understand the language because most of people that left my country to work abroad went to England.
Reply
0
User avatar #170 to #168 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
European countries aren't even remotely as low as the Middle East has sunk. Even Muslim-dominant Western places think it's barbaric.
Reply
0
#173 to #170 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Ok, explain me one thing, how is Germany going to create 200k or w/e work places for people that most likely can't even understand german and that have very bad education?
Reply
0
User avatar #182 to #173 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Giving simple directions doesn't require a nuanced understanding of language or culture. Plus, they'll form their own businesses in their own communities, doing trade and putting money in the local economy, which the government wants. Money talks louder than any atrocity.
Reply
0
#188 to #182 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Idk why but that sounds really stupid. Creating businesses in their own communities? Where will those businesses get clients if people don't have jobs? To generate money, you have to add value to product, how will uneducated masses do that?
Reply
0
User avatar #196 to #188 - Shiny ONLINE (01/12/2016) [-]
Uneducated doesn't mean literally retarded, they're still familiar with basic concepts of human society. Money will get traded around by more people over time, thus ensuring growth of capital.
Reply
+15
#40 to #2 - exima (01/11/2016) [-]
Yeah, I live in germany, and every single immigrant I've seen and talked to was absolutely awesome.
And I live in Munich. The city where like 80% of Immigrants go to.
Our central train station was filled for like 4 days. And then everything went normal again.
There are 80 000 000 Germans, and 200 000 Immigrants.
Thats 0.25%
thats a Ratio of 1 Immigrant to 400 native People.
And wtf do you think happens when someone finally gets to germany? You think they come here and be like "Hm... Now that I'm here in germany and out of syria... Yeah, let's attack some people just for the **** of it! Didn't want to stay here anyways!"

- Crime Rate hasn't increased, infact, it continues to DEcrease
- Unemployment continues to decrease from 7% to 6% (2014 to 2016)
- The employees that do the **** jobs like carrying trash that we desperately needed are finally there.
- You still need to pay like 40k to get a ******* Gun. And if you've got 40k, you have a job and have no reason to be a criminal.
- in 2015 the "death by shooting" was 2 dead People per 1 Million Inhabitants.
=> In America that number is 29.8

So wtf exactly is your point?
I thought we went over the whole "This minority is different, so we should shoot and/or gas them"
Reply
+5
User avatar #72 to #40 - huszti (01/11/2016) [-]
there were 470,000 asylum requests made in germany in 2015.
the actual number of immigrants is unknown; 1.1 million were added into a database for asylum seekers.
actually, crime rate rose by 2% in 2014; numbers for 2015 wont be published until april/may.
i dont know where you get that "40k to get a gun" from but i highly doubt it. a permit to buy guns is just 80€, registering a gun is an additional 20€. im not even commenting on the latter part of the gun argument because that was very meh.
Reply
+20
#43 to #40 - theinternetwizard (01/11/2016) [-]
Tell that to the women in cologne that was violated by a group of 1000 refugees in new years eve
Reply
+1
User avatar #130 to #43 - enlightednatzie (01/11/2016) [-]
*köln
Reply
-9
#45 to #43 - exima (01/11/2016) [-]
Yeah, you mean the refugees where most of them already were long under the eye of the police and were in germany for a bunch of years already?

These refugees that actually aren't refugees since they were in germany for a couple of years already?

Yeah. Bad Refugees right?
Reply
+5
#49 to #45 - theinternetwizard (01/11/2016) [-]
Several of the ones arrested self-identified as syrian refugees
And even if they had been in the country for years they are still representative of refuges.

And what kind of stupid argument is it to point out that most of them were already under the auspice of the police?
You do realize that it only supports what i am saying.
By making that claim you are undermining your own argument above.
Did you actually think through what you wrote?
Reply
0
#51 to #49 - exima (01/11/2016) [-]
If you just came into this country, how the **** are you supposed to be under auspice already??
You know how slow the german buerokratic system is?

And Why the **** would these few people be representative of refugees all around germany? Who states who's representative and who's not?
Why aren't the hundreds of refugees that a colleague of mine takes care of as her second job representative of the whole lot?
They never did anything violent, get good grades in school and try to learn german as fast as they can.

But nooo let's just burn all of them. Hitler would be so proud. -_-
Reply
0
#66 to #51 - theinternetwizard (01/11/2016) [-]
I might have used the word auspice wrong, looking it up it seems to mean something else then i thought. I thought it meant something like suspect/suspected.

anyways, that was a response to what you said, and i quote:
"you mean the refugees where most of them already were long under the eye of the police"
Thats why i ment that your comment basically supported my claim.

Few?
A thousand of them organized themselves and did this, and it happened at the same time in other parts of europe.
The fact that this could happen in europe marks a significant shift in the security image we have been dangling over the Americans.
How blatantly ******* obvious does it have to be?
Do they have to walk around the city shooting people?

And tell your coworker i said hi when she gets raped.

Hitler?
I thought you subjugated pussies were put in jail by mama Merkel for even mentioning his name.
Reply
+1
#70 to #66 - exima (01/11/2016) [-]
No, the fact that its reported makes a significant shift.
But only on the reporters side.

And even if all refugees were Steel Beam melting demons, so ******* what? They're still only 0.25% of the german population. Even less in other countries since they close their borders.
Also we germans don't make alot of children, we're decreasing. Getting people into the country is a good thing, because currently we're searching for people who pick up our garbage and manage the ***** we take. Jobs that noone wants to do here, because everyone's got a bachelor or master at something.

and "thousands organized to grab onto one female" is ******** . That didn't happen.
It was a normal assault, that happens every day on every country on earth, they got caught, they get sued, everythings normal again.

The only thing thats not normal, is the media coverage, because 12 year old wannabe nazis click on everything that has "Refugees rape **** " in the title, and Youtube VLoggers can run their mouths wild.
Organized Crime is something for the Italians.
Reply
-2
#109 to #70 - theinternetwizard (01/11/2016) [-]
It doesn't matter how many percentages were in on it.
What matters is that there are enough of them here that they feel they have a right to do this.
This is where it begins. This is were democracy starts to go in reverse. It is now liberty starts to rot away. First with the demands that we control our speech so not to insult the muslims. And then we can't say anything negative about them. Then women has to cover up themselves.
Who do you think is going to be doing the **** jobs in thirty years?
It aint gonna be the muslims, cause they tend to use whoever they have subjugated for those jobs. You are setting yourself up for ethnic and cultural genocide.

And ""thousands organized to grab onto one female" is ******** . That didn't happen. " i didn't say that. i said women, as in plural, as in several women.
As in women and men have reported 379 attacks to the police following that new years eve.
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/10/bbc-cologne-attacks-new-years-eve-crime-cases-top-500/
Reply
0
User avatar #115 to #109 - welliguessitsaname (01/11/2016) [-]
"First with the demands that we control our speech so not to insult the muslims. And then we can't say anything negative about them. Then women has to cover up themselves."

Um. Do you realize how many Muslims will be in Germany in the next few years? Not enough for Muslim law to be implemented, not for a very long time unless we see some drastic changes. Even if you did see that, who would implement and enforce those laws? I don't know much about German law, but I imagine that'd be the government. And I imagine that government, in a majorly white country, is majorly white. Not Syrians. You couldn't blame brown people for a decision made by a bunch of white people.

inbox CUCK
Reply
0
#134 to #115 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Too many people already think that being tolerant means that you can't criticize people at all. Those people have votes.
Reply
-1
#59 to #51 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Merkel is that you?
Reply
+1
#50 to #45 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
So your logic is that them being under police observation for years and not being deported is somehow better than if they just came over last week?

I feel bad for all the sane germans who have to life with you self hating idiots.
Reply
-2
#53 to #50 - exima (01/11/2016) [-]
No, my logic is: If you're living in germany for a couple of years already, you live in germany for a couple of years already.
Thats why you've got an identification card, that indicates, that you've been living in germany for a couple of years already.

Think about that logic. I'm sure you can understand it after a couple of hours.
Reply
0
#75 to #45 - vigilantej (01/11/2016) [-]
i dont know what ******** your spewing but they where not "in Germany for years" the German national accused of rape was but the others a bunch of Syrian dudes and an american where new to the country
Reply
0
#101 to #45 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Reply
+2
#77 to #40 - evulchibi (01/11/2016) [-]
Give me source for those statistics fagget
Reply
+1
User avatar #82 to #40 - nanahara ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
whoa whoa! easy there! you're gonna get all logical and **** up in here? bringing hard facts to show how minor the the problem is compared to the media coverage? how dare you?!
i think you're forgetting that FJ has become the rectum of /pol/. after moot left they all went looking for a new place to store their **** , and FJ was the "lucky" winner

the thing that is really hard to get for some people on fj, apparently, is that no one thinks what happened in köln was okay. They should be punished, no one is denying that. The whole point is, other peaceful respectful immigrant shouldn't have to suffer for it, they shouldn't have to be beaten up in the streets, cause some assholes touched an ass on new years.

yesterday in Norway there was a teacher (ethnic norwegian) caught having taken sexual advantage of over 250 underaged kids. he single-handedly pulled a köln, if not worse. no one is dragging him out in the streets to beat his **** .
Reply
0
#113 to #82 - theinternetwizard (01/11/2016) [-]
Those cases are not comparable.
There weren't a culture supporting the teachers pedophilia.
People are not reacting to a single persons actions. but a massive organized event that were solely for the purpose of crime.
People are reacting to a massive shift in the culture that leads the europe down the path to what the middle-east is now.

Oh btw: "buhu, peepl who ar aginst moslms are /pol (hurr hurr thtl shew dem)"
Why don't you **** off back to your hugbox in SV.
Reply
0
User avatar #123 to #113 - nanahara ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
There is no culture supporting what happened in Köln either. it was done by a group of people representing less than 0.5% of Germany's new immigrant population.

if you genuinely think all (or most) muslim immigrants sit at home plotting how they're gonna rape, or disgrace as many western women as possible, as soon as they cross the border, you are insane. it is ludicrous.

if I equate what you are saying about muslims, to norwegians. i would be as if i rounded up a couple of pedophilia cases, and said all norwegians support rape of children. they are indoctrinated to rape children and that is all they know.
Clearly you can understand how ******* retarded this sounds, right? so why does it make sense to you when you change norwegian with muslim?

just because everyone around you are chanting and repeating a lie often enough, doesnt make it true.
Reply
0
#136 to #123 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
Why use pedophilia as an example when the Muslim prophet had sex with 9 year old? It seems like a bad analogy.
Reply
0
User avatar #141 to #136 - nanahara ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
my whole point being, dont judge (a huge group) of people based on the actions of a few. you can change pedophelia with rape and norwegian with western european. as im sure you know western europeans rape too. Rape is not some phenomenon introduced by muslims onto the world, as some would like you to believe. still you dont go around associating western europeans with rape. so why cant a muslim be judged and punished individually the same way?

or do you just have an tangible need to bring out your expertise on islamic history?
you do know child brides were common in western europe too right? so i feel the pedophilia is equally fitting to arabs, western europeans, israelis and east asians
Reply
0
#148 to #141 - heyyoutoo (01/11/2016) [-]
"you do know child brides were common in western europe too right?" You used the correct word - "were". "so why cant a muslim be judged and punished individually the same way?" - because people are too politically correct and they won't be punished because those people will be afraid to be labeled racist or smth else.
"Rape is not some phenomenon introduced by muslims onto the world, as some would like you to believe" - never said that, can i now start insulting you too?
Reply
0
User avatar #152 to #40 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
The people being let in without question aren't just a danger to native people, they're a danger to immigrants that respect local customs and want to integrate. It's not us vs. them, it's purely opportunism. Open borders is more appealing to people who want to commit crimes than the rest of the herd.

Of course, there are quite a few retards online screaming "race war" but they aren't any different.
Reply
0
User avatar #104 to #40 - bottlemonster (01/11/2016) [-]
Why Spede Pasanen
Reply
+6
#5 to #2 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
spoken like a true freedom fighter,my country in canada is going through the same fate.
Reply
+2
User avatar #118 to #5 - bme (01/11/2016) [-]
No we aren't you ******* knob
Reply
+8
#33 to #2 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Just make your own weapons.. thats what i did. You can make a lot of nice things with household objects. And when the **** goes down (what it will for sure) there will be hellfire.
Reply
0
#171 to #33 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Molotov for home defense? Lol, that couldn't possibly go wrong in any way.
Reply
+9
#4 to #2 - baconfattie (01/11/2016) [-]
I was the same as you. Totally opossed to guns. But now things are getting out of hand, and you cannot defend yourself, the government is not helping you, and often times people cannot run away.

When all these things happen, every citizen should be allowed to have a weapon to protect him/herself and those around him/her.
Reply
+4
User avatar #15 to #2 - dofyx (01/11/2016) [-]
sorry to hear about that buddy, hope you get a gun soon if you decide to do so, protect your loved ones
Reply
+8
#20 to #2 - kingderps (01/11/2016) [-]
My advice to any European, be like the paranoid gun nuts of America. Build secret bunkers, stockpile supplies. Do it in defense. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when, your societies will erupt in chaos. Have an insurance policy for your loved ones and your lineage. The elephant in the room is that action is needed in Europe to protect their ancient cultures and ways of life. I don't know what the solution is, but you people need to get angry.
Reply
-1
User avatar #150 to #20 - guillem (01/11/2016) [-]
You reeeally should leave the Internet and go outside, things aren't nearly 1/10th as bad or apocalyptical as they are said to be in this website. Just because we've let a couple hundreds of thousands, or even a million or two, of refugees/migrants into Europe, a country with around 700 million people doesn't mean our societies will "erupt in chaos". Jesus, man, just no.

Some of them will be assholes, true, but it is also true they will be promptly kicked out of here, and the rest will probably assimilate within a generation or two, retaining elements of their cultures but ending up integrated. This migrant wave isn't really the threat you portrait them to be and in fact could do good to this continent if handled properly.
Reply
0
#208 to #150 - kingderps (01/12/2016) [-]
The Muslims have been under estimated from their inception and if you knew their history, you would think differently. Don't under estimate what an ideology can do. I don't look down on all Muslims, I don't look at the issue so one dimensional. There is both good and bad about them and we need to be sober about what is happening.
Reply
+29
#7 - twentyfourseven (01/11/2016) [-]
Anti-gun dude knows that pro-gun dude has a pretty solid argument, so he tried resorting to making pro-gun dude look stupid or rednecky. Good for pro-gun dude for not stooping to anti-gun dude's level. Murica
Reply
+4
User avatar #38 - lolollo ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
I used to believe that we were safe with the idea that even if that law were to happen, the police would never obligate themselves to enact on it, but then I look at the social climate of my state and the worry creeps in.

The police here are becoming so aggressively paranoid of the common populous that it's starting to rival the feminazi mindset on men and rape. "Better to incarcerate 9 innocent men on the garuntee the 10th one is a rapist." You ask a hypothetical on "what would you do if someone tackles your partner?" and they immediately say "shoot him!"

**** your grappling training, **** M.A.C.H training, **** your tazer...just shoot him. There's no R.O.E. anymore, and it ******* terrifies me, because I'm starting to see this climate where we might actually need guns just to be able to viably make that choice "do I shoot back and be labeled a cop killer, or do I just lie down and die for having been 'walking down the street all suspicious like'..."

But then I can't express that worry because "LoL you're being paranoid nothing will happen!" as more and more of these controversies happen weekly.
Reply
+9
User avatar #16 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
Personally I'm against having guns and wouldn't like to see my country pass laws to allow owning them.

But I can see that America is in too deep, banning guns at this point would do more harm than good
Reply
+1
#27 to #16 - deepterror ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
So you don't think that people have a right to self-defense?
Reply
+11
User avatar #28 to #27 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
so you think the right to self-defense consists only of having guns?

Reply
+1
#29 to #28 - deepterror ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
You didn't answer mt question....

I think that private firearm ownership goes hand in hand with self-defense. Technically you can defend yourself without firearms, but a firearm is the best way of defending yourself. It is the equalizer. To me, if I have the right to self-defense (which everyone does), than I must also have the right to own firearms.
Reply
+7
User avatar #31 to #29 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
firearms also go hand in hand with offense and ******* , especially when people aren't trained to use them.

thiefs, robbers and rapists rarely use guns here, it attracts too much attention. Fire it and there's a squad car coming for you. carrying one adds years to your sentence.

How would arming civilians with guns help? What was a knife or a taser fight is now a gunfight.

When crime may become rampant and more life-threatening guns may be a solution, but as now it isn't.
Reply
+5
#32 to #31 - deepterror ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Holy **** , the assumptions are real.

First off, I did not say that people should not be trained. They should be, but even if they weren't, they have the right to take that risk. Why are you so quick to disregard the average citizen as someone too stupid to properly handle a firearm? Proper firearm discipline is easy to learn. To say that the average citizen cannot handle a gun is to say that the average citizen cannot drive a car, because proper firearm handling is literally much easier than handling a car.

I don't care if they often use guns or not. If I am getting mugged, or my house is getting broken into, if my family's like is in danger, I have the right to defend myself and my family. Like is not like some videogame where your strength is based on some simple ******* stats or weapons that you equip. Someone is in my house. I want to draw my gun on them and hold them there until police arrive and shoot them if they pose an immediate threat. How can I do that with a knife, or a baseball bat? How can elderly people or weaker people (your beautiful wife, for example) defend themselves if they do not have the strength to resist and overcome an attacker? I would rather be in a firefight than get gutted while some other nignog takes a turn at my wife and daughter. I dont need a gun to even the odds. I need a gun so that I control the odds. So that I am not at someone else's mercy. Someone who is already posing a threat to me. But how illogical of me., sorry.

I don't know where you live, but regardless, bad things can happen. The police cannot stop every crime, the police cannot be there when you wake up to thugs in your home, the police cannot be there when someone tries to mug you or rape you. You need quick, reliable defense in the moment, and that defense comes in the form of a gun.

I hope no one ever has to rely on you for their safety and well-being in a moment of danger, because they are going to be sorely let down. You owe it to yourself and to your loved ones to be able to provide a capable defense.
Reply
-4
#34 to #32 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
Have you tried taking a chill pill? It's just an internet argument.

So who's gonna protect my girlfriend if not me? Someone with a gun? because that would be a criminal. I hope they have visitation hours where he's going.

Anyway, I'm bad at explaining or I just don't know everything I need to know about this subject. What I do know is that our system is at the lower bound of criminal offenses, but pretty close to our neighbours. www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp Its the Netherlands

Maybe when things go south we need guns. But we're not there yet
Reply
+4
#35 to #34 - deepterror ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
I am not angry, just thorough.

The whole point is that YOU are supposed to be the one to protect your girlfriend. And a gun is the best way to do that. If you think that just because some gets caught and goes to jail, that is somehow negates whatever they did in the first place, you should go get committed, because that is insane.

The whole point of having a gun is for when we NEED them. You have to have one before you need it obviously. And you don't even take into account government overreach. But that is something else entirely.

My original point still stands. You are responsible for your safety and for the safety of your family. Go buy a gun.
Reply
+4
User avatar #39 to #35 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
>Buy gun
>get arrested
>???
>profit

can't you just imagine that there are countries where you don't need to fear for your life when you go outside? I have to go to a really bad neighbourhood at night and provoke people to have my ass kicked.

Also, nobody has cash on hand, we pay for everything with a debit card. robbing people is pointless. You keep saying I will have to fight for my life but people aren't out to kill me. If they rob me, I won't be a smartass and hand them my 15 cents. Burglars strike almost always when they know the target isnt home. To them its a risk, because they dont know what the owner has lying next to their bed. Some rapist wants to tackle a girl while her boyfriend is with her? I call that a tactical failure. Violence is much less present here, and as a result crimes are much less violent as well. Each time someone gets killed during a breakin or robbery there is a public outcry.
Reply
+2
User avatar #126 to #39 - severepwner (01/11/2016) [-]
"Can't you just imagine there are countries where you don't need to fear for your life when you go outside?"

Oh my sweet summer child. Nobody thinks anything bad could ever happen to them, until it happens to them. The world is an extremely dangerous place, saying it's not is a fantasy.

We have people being raped, assaulted, another victim in shootings, their person's mugged, their cars stolen, their houses broken into with them inside, ALL THE TIME. What are you going to say when that person is you?
Reply
0
User avatar #128 to #126 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
And in turn, thats what someone from the third world would say to you. Have fun feeling better about yourself because your country has more violence
Reply
+1
#42 to #39 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Sounds like you have everything figured out and you're protected from all the real world problems.
Reply
+4
User avatar #48 to #42 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
thats what the government is for. making sure we dont need to kill eachother to live
Reply
+1
User avatar #140 to #48 - unladenswallow (01/11/2016) [-]
Unfortunately the government can't protect every single person constantly.
Reply
-1
User avatar #165 to #140 - DivineInfinity (01/11/2016) [-]
Fortunately it does a better job at keeping its citizens safe than the US citizens do
Reply
0
User avatar #166 to #165 - unladenswallow (01/11/2016) [-]
That's kinda arguable, given the tens of thousands of times a year that people use their guns to ward off/shoot an intruder/attacker in the U.S. The police don't get there until after the problem has ended.
Reply
0
User avatar #193 to #166 - DivineInfinity (01/12/2016) [-]
about 200 rapes
120-140 murders, it seems to be going down each year
these are serious offences which allow for a possibly lethal response

If youre getting mugged, give him your coppers and file a complaint. Its not worth it to end either of your lives for whatever's in your wallet.

So now we're talking about arming maybe 10 out of the total 16 million people in case any of them is the unlucky 340? it sucks for them, but this is a severe overreaction.
Reply
0
#209 to #48 - deepterror ONLINE (01/12/2016) [-]
That is the problem right there. That is the root of it.

"the government will protect us" "the government just wants to help" "just call the police"

Every second arguing people so ******* vapid and disassociated from reality is wasted, but I like to waste time, so here I am.

Think about this. Every single crime. Every single rape, every mugging, every assault, every theft, every murder, every one, was a crime that was not prevented. Yet you still claim to this blanket of "feel good" thinking that somehow, even though you personally don't find yourself in danger with any frequency, everyone should be disarmed. How the **** do you get from "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so I won't bother" to "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so no one can have any. No one except this one specific group of people"

Don't want a gun? Fine. Don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you are sheltered from all of the harm in the world. And don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you think the average person is functioning retard with no comprehension of proper firearm usage.

I am starting to feel like you actually are ok with someone helping themselves to your wife, you little cuckboi
Reply
0
User avatar #210 to #209 - DivineInfinity (01/12/2016) [-]
by percentage there are more crimes in the USA than here. Looks like your way of preventing crimes doesnt really work
Reply
0
#211 to #210 - deepterror ONLINE (01/12/2016) [-]
.....How about you let me know where "here" is? Would help a lot.

Reply
0
User avatar #212 to #211 - DivineInfinity (01/12/2016) [-]
the netherlands. now hit me with some statistics
Reply
0
#213 to #212 - deepterror ONLINE (01/12/2016) [-]
The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.
Reply
0
User avatar #214 to #213 - DivineInfinity (01/12/2016) [-]
so now its not important anymore to defend from other civilians? the whole point was that we dont need it and the US does, and I'm ok with that. I see that it helps them, and I say again that it wouldnt help here.

As for the 2nd world war banter: as a small country you don't have all the options available when going into war. For starters we can't raise a big army nor can we hide in the countryside from nukes. Bigger and more powerful countries often forget that sometimes accepting things like they are is inevitable. If every Dutchman had a gun and fought the Nazis then The Netherlands would now be an uninhabited wasteland. This would also be our fate if we hadn't surrendered after 5 days, because we could not withstand the ruthless bombing.

Please tell me what country put its citizens on the frontline when the germans came and won because of that. Inb4 Russia, they have infinite slavs
Please tell me how Canadian civilians with their Colt 1911 for home defense liberated Europe
Reply
0
#215 to #214 - deepterror ONLINE (01/12/2016) [-]
You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. ****** analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

Reply
0
#219 to #215 - DivineInfinity (01/13/2016) [-]
What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW **** will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Reply
0
#224 to #219 - deepterror ONLINE (15 hours ago) [-]
Again, not sure why I can't reply to certain messages.

Anyway, you didn't ask for certain examples, you just asked for examples. I used that example over others because it is the best example.

I mean, I guess everyone has their own definition of pretty much everything, but basically, the way it goes at least in the constitution (which in this instance I agree with) is that you born with the inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Essentially, I believe that pretty much every right, comes along with responsibilities, and vice versa. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the responsibility to use it correctly, (thoughtful discussion, instead of going out in public and screaming at people). You have the right to transportation. You have the responsibility to drive properly and safely. It does not infringe on any rights or freedoms to license drivers. You have a right to swing your fist, but your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You have a right to personal safety, but a responsibility to avoid causing harm. Unless of course, you are the one in harms way.

Basically, you have the freedom to do anything that does not infringe on anyone else freedom. This includes attacking them, killing them, ect...

So you may not think of it as absolute freedom but it is. Because as soon as one person exerts their freedom over another, there is not more freedom, there is less, or at least arguably the same, because someone else is losing theirs.

As for things like passports and what not, well, that is different kind of freedom. That is the most literal definition in which I cannot physically enter those countries because authorities will stop me if they so choose so.

Maybe because your country is pacified you don't see any gun debates going on, or maybe because you haven't looked, or both, but it is a major issue in the states, which is a bit more relevant than the Netherlands, and in many other places in the world. Is always has been, and probably always will be an argument fought.

Americans are in danger of losing their rights as much as anyone else but they started off with more than most , and today they are more objectively free than most countries. Private gun ownership is a hallmark of a free society. It should be sought after tirelessly.

Please go do just a quick 5-min search of armed protests, please. There are literally hundreds of examples of masses of people uniting together to stand against gun control. You would have to go out of your way on the internet to never come across it.

I don't believe I am completely as free as I should be under the government in which I live, and I never said that I was.

Guess what? You don't "need" guns to be free in the same way that you don't "need" a fire extinguisher in case of a fire. I just hope for your sake that something doesn't light up.

I think we are just going back and forth at this point, but I would like to you to answer the question I asked earlier.

At what point would you justify armed resistance. Where would you draw the line? Is there a line?


Reply
0
#222 to #219 - deepterror ONLINE (16 hours ago) [-]
First off, I am replying to this comment because for some reason I couldn't reply to the other.

Now anyways, Yes, technically speaking, it would be a fight against whatever police and military would be left to fight you. Many (atleast in America) would defect or at the very least downright refuse to shoot their fellow neighbors.

Defend against the government has a wide meaning but essentially it would mean at the very least to resist with force against agents of the state.

Someone dying is not the worst thing that can happen. I would rather have an intruder dead than my family harmed. I think most people would agree if given only those two options. Those usually aren't the only two, but it would be cool to have some say in whether you get killed or not.

The whole point is that every person in the world was born with inherent freedoms. Everyone (ideally) should be able to live how they want, pursue certain careers, do certain activities, ect.. so people should have the right to die for they want as well. We honour people who die protecting opium fields in iraq but if someone goes down fighting for their country after their government has surrendered, there is suddenly something wrong with that?

Never heard of the American Revolution? The people were literally being ********* by the british, their governing authority, they were being disarmed, they were being silenced, and they had enough. Someone drew a line in the sand and fought back. And look what happened. For the first time in history, a massive governing body was overthrown (rare enough on its own) and the powers that took over instantly declared gave the power right back to the people. There was no new tyranny. There was no more unjust persecution,

They took over and turned right around and said "if we step out of line, shut us down". This is written in the constitution, how and when to resist the government ans whatnot
0
User avatar #223 to #222 - DivineInfinity (16 hours ago) [-]
Yay, the civil war! Maybe it is still relevant on the other side of the pond, but times have changed. Why didn't you say Ukraine? Russia granted the separatists weapons and now they are engaged in a civil war for the eastern territories. Maybe the Arabian Spring? All parties in Syria, including ISIS, are also fighting for their own territories.

people keep repeating "freedom" until they believe they're free. Well guess what, you aren't. You aren't free to do drugs well, I believe we are more free in that than a lot of countries , you aren't free to take someone else's property, you aren't free to drive without a license, you aren't free to fly to another country without the proper documents, you aren't free to pay no taxes, you aren't free to declare your home your own country, you aren't free to piss on someone.

Regardless whether any of these are true in your country, you aren't completely free. You abide the laws because that makes life easier for all of us. US citizens aren't objectively free because they can have guns. Even if they are "more free" than us, it is something I would gladly give up. Debates about legal ownership of guns are extremely few and far between. Fallacy: I've never ever heard anyone say that guns should be legal, nor heard about any debate about it. A quick search confirmed that not many people are lining up to protest for this basic human right.

Don't pretend you are free. You are not. If you need guns to be free, I pity you.
Reply
0
#220 to #219 - deepterror ONLINE (20 hours ago) [-]
People should be able to fight and die if they so choose so. Plenty of french civilians took up arms against the German occupation. Winning isn't everything. People should be able to fight and die for their country if it falls, just because you don't want to doesn't mean others shouldn't.

I don't think people should take up arms just because of some gun laws. I think people should go through the courts when they have issues they want discussed. They should peacefully protest, and they should lobby, and communicate and talk about what needs to happen. You take up arms when you have your forums for communication taken away. You take up arms when unreasonable restrictions are placed on your weapons. You take up arms when your rights are in danger.

You and plenty of other people seem ti have this way of thinking where you think that if someone wants/has a gun, that their first instinct and goal is to kill when faced with danger. This is malicious and false. Being armed does not mean that I will kill at first sight or eagerly start war, or look for trouble, or put myself in harms way, or anything like that. It doesn't mean that if I hear a window break in the middle of the night, I am going to go out and investigate with the intent of killing. I could lock my bedroom door and call the police. I could hide, I could talk down an intruder if possible, I could even wait until they are gone, I could do any f things. Having a gun does not mean I won't do them, it just means that they are not my only option.

It means that if I choose to back down, or to run, or to hide, if the aggressor forces me into danger regardless, if I find myself with no other option, that I may possibly defend myself. It means that we are putting the odds in the favor of the person who's home is being invaded instead of the intruder.

This goes for personal defense, as well as defense against a tyrannical government.

I am all for peaceful protest and demonstration and legislation, but there has to be a line somewhere.

Ask yourself this. Do you think, completely regardless of what you think the odds are of this happening, that there is line where the citizens of a nation must turn on the government? Is there any point where your most fundamental liberties have been eroded to the amount needed for you agree with armed resistance. Don't throw anything else in there, just answer that one question, plain and simple please.

And what do you mean by "when did it happen before?" in reference to armed resistance? Do you want examples?
0
User avatar #221 to #220 - DivineInfinity (16 hours ago) [-]
turning on the government means what exactly? a civil war? do we have to fight against the police? the army? do we fight the people who are taking us to interment camps? or more realistically, our liberties get eroded much more subtly and there is no clear point at which we should revolt.

I keep hearing the argument "defend against the government", but what does it mean?

I don't think guns will make everyone a murderer, but I do believe it will make a lot of things worse. Every crime that happens now has increased potential to be lethal because one of the parties might carry a gun.

>people should be able to fight and die if they choose so

that's nice, but if they want to serve their country so badly and not die instantly why not join the army? I seriously doubt civilians could make a significant dent in an enemy advance if they don't have military-grade weapons.

And yes, give me examples
Reply
0
#52 to #39 - onecommentonlyone (01/11/2016) [-]
You're hitting on one of my thoughts on this whole thing fairly well, I'm just not afraid of getting mugged/broken into, it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I've lived at home and am currently studying and have never felt intimidated or threatened in either location. I don't know how to fix the issues in the US, better background checks and forcing people to get permits or the equivalent seems like it makes sense, but the gun lobby I'm sure would argue that goes against the wording of the 2nd amendment. Guns are fun, I get that, I've hunted and stuff, that's good fun, but I'd never want to have one in my house, there's more risk there than me getting attacked, and even in a crisis I really doubt I could kill someone honestly.
Reply
+1
User avatar #57 - Anonymis (01/11/2016) [-]
tldr

Who am I supposed to side with
Reply
0
User avatar #89 to #57 - highkingtorygg (01/11/2016) [-]
side with the ones who like freedom and liberty

pro gun
BUZZWORDS AHOY
Reply
+2
#61 to #57 - pebar (01/11/2016) [-]
side with the pro gun people


because anti-gun people are unbelievably retarded
Reply
+10
#73 to #61 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
They are both retarded though.

One shouldn't be trying to take away thing from the other just because one doesn't like it, and the other shouldn't be trying to justify being so paranoid to one.
Reply
0
User avatar #90 to #73 - highkingtorygg (01/11/2016) [-]
phrasing
can someone explain to me what this anon is trying to say
Reply
+1
#180 to #90 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
Basically, he's pro-gun in the sense that he doesn't believe that anti-gun people should even have the option to take away guns, which are literally right after freedom of speech on the bill of rights. At the same time, he says that the pro-gun case is retarded because they take the burden of proof when they don't need to and try to make their case which is built on a paranoid and pessimistic worldview that is easy to attack and tends to drive neutral people towards the anti-gun side.
Reply
0
User avatar #202 to #180 - highkingtorygg (01/12/2016) [-]
thank you anon
Reply
0
User avatar #125 to #90 - stigus ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
that it isn't just black and white like most ignorant people see it as. there exists gray area where everyone (mostly everyone anyway) can agree to a compromise. an example being required gun licences/training where you have to prove that you can use and handle a gun.
Reply
0
User avatar #127 to #61 - severepwner (01/11/2016) [-]
Dat perfect 0 though.
Reply
+3
User avatar #151 - ChewyConor (01/11/2016) [-]
I don't think that guns are an inherent problem, but there are some common US attitudes and behaviours with respect to guns that I find terrifying.
Many countries are able to have guns all over the place without serious consequences, you gun toters love to cite them as evidence that guns aren't the problem.
No, they're not. People are the problem. Stupid, irrational, ignorant, violent people. So why are you giving them access to guns?

Why, when your common solutions go problems are:
Angry at the world? Getting bullied? Depressed?
Kill them.

Stranger in your home?
Kill them.

Someone threatens you?
Kill them.

Why do so many American people have a willingness, or sometimes even a desire, to perform summary executions? Do you not realise how barbaric that is?

I may have strayed into severe red thumb territory now but I've come this far...

Is USA such a ****** place that people face life threatening situations frequently enough that a gun is required?

Are people really so paranoid about someone coming for them (even/especially their own government)? When was the last time that was an even remotely credible threat? What outcome could that possibly achieve?

What the **** is wrong with people?
Reply
+4
#154 - TehFunnyMan (01/11/2016) [-]
GIF
Hey, you. Don't go down there. It's a mess.
Reply
+1
User avatar #161 to #154 - jazert (01/11/2016) [-]
I should have listened
Reply
+8
User avatar #14 - wcpapier ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
imo they both sound absolutley retarded
Reply
+2
User avatar #121 - rahzma ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Saying guns are evil is retarded. Saying guns should be given to everyone is also retarded.

I believe a lot of people should not be trusted with something as dangerous as a gun, because there's just too many idiots out there that'll here a pop of a balloon and start shootin cause they think someone else is.

I wouldn't take someone's gun away if they've been smart enough with it, but I don't want every self-entitled little **** to get one either. You need to earn the right to have a gun, just like you need to earn the right to drive.
Reply
+1
User avatar #157 to #121 - Shiny ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
I wouldn't say it needs to be gained as much as it needs to be easily lost.
Reply
+1
User avatar #159 to #121 - lamarsmithgot (01/11/2016) [-]
the problem is, the US constitution says that having guns IS a right, and making a revision to the constitution would be extremely controversial
Reply
+1
User avatar #189 to #159 - rahzma ONLINE (01/12/2016) [-]
God forbid anyone do anything controversial right? Haha, nah, I do get what you're saying man.

Now, I'm not saying we should change the constitution, but I am saying maybe look at it again. I mean, things have changed quite a bit. We're definitely not in completely peaceful times, people die every day to violence, and I believe everyone does have the right to defend themselves in any way possible, including owning a gun. All I'm saying is that there's some people out there that really shouldn't own a gun.

As for how to fix the situation? No idea. I got nothing. You start taking people's guns away, there's gonna be problems. Start testing people, they're gonna cry, "But muh freedoms" because human beings are whiny little bitches.

The sad truth is that there is no real way to fix it because then where would the freedom be? All we can do is hope that humanity keeps getting better and one day we can still eat our cake and have it too.
Reply
+1
User avatar #201 to #189 - lamarsmithgot (01/12/2016) [-]
fully agreed. It's a real catch 22
Reply
+2
User avatar #147 to #121 - unladenswallow (01/11/2016) [-]
The driving permit concept is really a bad comparison though. Guns, designed to kill people, licensing requirements vary, kill a third or less as many people as a device that is designed to provide transportation and requires testing, licensing, and insurance, has tens of thousands of rules and regulations, departments specifically devoted to policing it (highway patrol, state departments of motor vehicles, etc.), and has been continually made more safe with each passing year. About 1 in 3 people out of the total population of the U.S. drive. About 1 in 3 people in the U.S. own a gun. Yet the thing designed to kill does so considerably less frequently. Not saying we should stop licensing people to drive or ditch anything else listed. Just pointing out the slight issue in the comparison.
Reply
+2
User avatar #102 - redbannerman (01/11/2016) [-]
I like guns

I like hunting

I like target practice

Why would you want to take guns away from me when I use them for perfectly harmless actions? Is it because there's a couple of ********* out there who are ******* insane? I'm not going to hurt someone unless they attempt to harm me. I will not hurt a person on accident, because I've taken gun safety (Hunter's safety but same idea). What gun control is, to me at least, is telling me that I'm too irresponsible to handle a firearm because someone else used it maliciously. I'm all for regulation of firearms in that we screen people before allowing them to purchase and making gun safety courses mandatory. The screening should be for mental health and criminal records only.
Reply
+2
#30 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
>Get held up by a mugger in the middle of the afternoon

>Get stabbed because I didn't have any money to give him

>Eventually get a license and pistol for self-defense reasons

>Talking with a colleague and the topic drifts to guns

>Mention I keep a self-defense weapon on me and what led me to do so

>He calls me a monster and a racist (don't know why, never mentioned the mugger's race and the mugger was white regardless) and tells me to leave before he calls the cops.

>Ok then
Reply
+2
#117 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
I'd like to see guns treated like cars
They're both killing machines, but one is explicitly designed to kill as efficiently as possible
Gun owners should register their guns like they register their cars so that if you or someone else uses your gun in a crime, the police have a lead
And have training in order to get a licence that says you know what the hell you're doing
If you have a DUI they take away your licence
The same should apply to guns
Reply
+2
User avatar #8 - Riukanojutsu (01/11/2016) [-]
Hows your tinfoil hat club going OP?
Reply
+1
User avatar #131 to #8 - severepwner (01/11/2016) [-]
He doesn't even take a side here. You just think he is, the the Pro-gun arguer here has a better argument and is the one that is winning the argument in this content.
Reply
+1
#186 - adr (01/11/2016) [-]
They both make terrible arguments. As for me I prescribe to the mentality of "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
Reply
+1
User avatar #183 - douthit (01/11/2016) [-]
If I want to own a gun, it's none of your business. Live and let live. The only way you're gonna keep me from having one is to use violence or threat of violence (via gun) to stop me. Then you've pretty much defeated your own ideas.
Reply
+1
User avatar #155 - idkwhatthatmeans (01/11/2016) [-]
Its a pretty ******* simple situation in the US and idk why people have a hard time grasping this:

-There are MILLIONS of guns and high power assault rifles in the US and in Mexico where they are often smuggled. You cant get rid of them, you cant take all of them. period.
-Criminals dont care about the law, they can buy guns illegally if you stop selling them.
You cant ban guns at this point because then you give all the criminals power to kill whenever they ******* feel like with no threat of a vigilante protector. Best plan of action at this point is to ensure society can protect itself, by allowing people to attain guns(background checks help).

It's ******* stupid that the anti-gun guys entire argument is "well its never happened to me so i dont see the need." NO ******* **** it hasnt happened to you, otherwise YOU WOULD BE DEAD.
Reply
+1
#112 - serenitynocturnus (01/11/2016) [-]
Jim Jefferies - Guns Are Not Protection - from BARE - Netflix Special

Every time I see these arguments, I'm firmly in the middle. So instead of commenting, I'm just gonna leave a comedian who I find funny, speaking relevantly.
Reply
0
#199 to #112 - lordraine (01/12/2016) [-]
People being firmly in the middle is what allowed the progressives to push as far as they have.

Obama was able to pass legislation that allows the President to indefinately detain anyone he so chooses for no reason, even American citizens, because of people like you who "just don't want to talk about it."

**** you. Not talking about it got us into this **** . More not talking isn't going to make things better.
Reply
0
User avatar #206 to #199 - serenitynocturnus (01/12/2016) [-]
Look. Being in the middle and inaction, are two very different things. It's the passive people that don't decide one way or another what they want, THOSE middle people with one toe in each pool that let ****** legislation get passed.
I agree, that talking needs to happen. That being said, this is a website, full of idiots, and people who like to have strong opinions on things just to piss people off. I'm not going to talk about it here, because me saying "I think we should have better ways to regulate who can get a hold of firearms, without making legislation that's so choking and restrictive and still allows every single average american that wants a gun to get one" on funnyjunk, does absolutely nothing. I hate politics on this site. And not talking about it here, doesn't affect anyone.
Reply
0
#217 to #206 - lordraine (01/12/2016) [-]
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

It autoposted before I was finished, for some reason.
Reply
0
#216 to #206 - lordraine (01/12/2016) [-]
If you're in the middle, you're not taking any action. The two are synonymous.

People like you who don't want to take a side are the reason western civilization has backslid as far as it has.
Reply
+1
#107 - verycoolcat (01/11/2016) [-]
I had a 308 FN rifle. My antigun brother in law asked me 'What do you need a rifle like that for... for hunting?'

and i said 'No.... its to defend myself from people who are half a mile away'
123>
[ 224 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)