x
Click to expand

Project

  • Recommend tagsx
+29
Views: 3910
Favorited: 2
Submitted: 02/06/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to dopeythedestroyer Subscribe to fucking-guns submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+7
#16 - basiclynothing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#7 - thegamerslife (02/06/2013) [-]
Today on funnyjunk...everyone's been pretty chill in the comments :D
User avatar #28 - mrfourtysevenman (02/27/2013) [-]
assault weapon regulation is fine where it is, requiring an elevated lisence to purchase one at a FAIRLY high price.
they are great to own but they shouldnt be easy to own
and my no means shld they be banned.
#23 - Rascal (02/13/2013) [-]
F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.
The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble.
#22 - Rascal (02/13/2013) [-]
The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.
A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
#21 - mechbaird (02/13/2013) [-]
just bring in statistics, the average response time for a 911 call is roughly 23 min whilst just showing a gun is sometimes enough to ward off a attacker even a warning shot is a great attention grabber. then point out whos protected by guns, if guns are bad why would we protect our nation and our leader with them. and even if we were stricter on guns what would that stop? it would stop the law abiding citizens out there from attaining them, but the drug dealers and rapists out there wont care about the law, so it'll only be affecting the good guys . compare gun control to prohabition(alchol ban) did that work? no it made good people squander more money just to get there drinks and turned them into common criminals
#18 - harryblazer (02/09/2013) [-]
I'd look up incidents where someone with a conceal carry weapon or a home defense weapon was able to use it correctly and defend themselves. googe or youtube that and im sure you will find stories. Also, bring up the pearl river MS shooting that happenned a couple years ago. its very relevant
User avatar #13 - spikethepony (02/06/2013) [-]
Just look up statistics of the last several shootings and notice that they all are in areas known for strict gun control. Also look into an attempted movie theatre shooting (in Arkansas?) that didn't make national headlines because the gunner was shot as soon as he pulled his gun. (It didn't make headlines because it did not conform to the media's agenda [makes me sound paranoid, but it is true])
#11 - outer (02/06/2013) [-]
dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/   
   
you can PM me any questions, seeing that I'm training to be a gunsmith I have a fairly extensive knowledge on this subject.   
   
P.S. Good on you for choosing to bring this subject to school, and good luck.
dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

you can PM me any questions, seeing that I'm training to be a gunsmith I have a fairly extensive knowledge on this subject.

P.S. Good on you for choosing to bring this subject to school, and good luck.
#6 - IAMDIZZYONFANTA (02/06/2013) [-]
www.assaultweapon.info/

here ye go. Also try /k/, if they're in a good mood they'll give you a decent answer.
User avatar #4 - thegamerslife (02/06/2013) [-]
go here. ask these people. they are very knowledgeable (at least the magical fairy princesss are)
2nd rights FB page, magical fairy princesss are usually on.
www.facebook.com/2ndRight?ref=stream
oregon firearms federation, also very smart, and intellectual magical fairy princesss:
www.facebook.com/pages/Oregon-Firearms-Federation/290842485462?ref=stream
User avatar #3 - timaniac (02/06/2013) [-]
>we are going against a hardcore Democratic Liberals
#2 - frylord (02/06/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80



That video should help
User avatar #5 to #2 - thegamerslife (02/06/2013) [-]
Just wish they would stop using "assault rifle" the wrong way. irritating.
#8 to #5 - frylord (02/06/2013) [-]
hur? wut?
User avatar #9 to #8 - thegamerslife (02/06/2013) [-]
in the video they misuse the term assault rifle a lot! I just wish they would use terms properly instead of making things seem worse then they are to further an agenda. my 2 cents
User avatar #1 - yunogasaii (02/06/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link
To understand liberals, you have to examine liberals. Two of them are in this website.
#14 - saeuruk (02/06/2013) [-]
Why does everyone have to go to one extreme or the other? Why cant we just be in favor of some measures of gun control. No full auto's, no incendiary ammo, no silencers... **** like that. Brady campaign and the NRA can both go hang.
User avatar #15 to #14 - dopeythedestroyer (02/06/2013) [-]
I am not going for free reign of guns, I also do wish for some control, not to an extreme though, and the guy that I am debating against is a major extremist
#17 to #15 - saeuruk (02/07/2013) [-]
Ok It sounded in your post as if you were against any legislation, I do apologize for misunderstanding,
#19 to #14 - nkprives (02/12/2013) [-]
silencers should not be banned, you think they are "silencing" therefore you know jack **** about guns. if you dont know, y r u in favor of banning?
#25 to #19 - saeuruk (02/13/2013) [-]
Silencer don't silence, the suppress the noise. The proper term is suppressors you are correct. I use the term that the general public subscribes to. Never said I was in favor of banning fire arms, I am in favor of regulation of them, because guess what in the hands of an idiot, firearms increase the danger they represent. The average person has no need of a suppressor, there are three main types of armed civilians, and yes there are people that belong to more than one type. A) There are the people who have a gun for realistic self-defense, Auto pistols for personal use, shotguns and pistols for home defense. B) There are people that have them for hunting purposes, rifles and shotguns, with some revolvers. C) People that like to take them out to a range and shoot for fun. Group A doesn't need a suppressor for any practical purpose, in fact a suppressor reduces accuracy by offsetting the balance of the gun and prevents the muzzle retort from alerting anyone else who might call the police to assist you. Group B has no use for a suppressor because it again reduces accuracy. Group C are the only ones that MIGHT have an argument for suppressor use, but even then it is a weak argument. Ear protection is cheaper, and it also makes more sense to allow.

Before accusing someone of knowing nothing about firearms you should do a little more research. For all you know (and I'm not saying I am) I'm a range master, former military, or a gunsmith.
#26 to #25 - nkprives (02/14/2013) [-]
firearm ownership is a right. while suppresors are not 'firearms', they are an accessory of 'arms' which in my opinion protects them. there is no need to justify a right.
User avatar #29 - destroyerperson (06/03/2013) [-]
without guns, we would be controlled by the british, and lost both world wars
User avatar #27 - skeetonamber (02/16/2013) [-]
penn & teller ******** gun control
#20 - Rascal (02/13/2013) [-]
Democratic Liberal here, why are we supposed to be crushed, again? (P.S. I'm not from your school, I live in New Jersey)
#12 - Rascal (02/06/2013) [-]
Don't forget to get yourself psyched up by watching/Listening to a few hours of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones. You'll figure out how to blatantly ignore real questions and divert attention to how badly your religion/rights/freedom to oppress are being attacked by anything the other team can request/state.
 Friends (0)