Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #855 - jdonaldson (01/04/2013) [-]
Legally Bought a SKS with a 30 round clip when I was 16. That was over 20 years ago and the SKS has not once tried to slaughter people. Funny According to Diana Feinstein, who has armed guards to protect her, it should have killed someone by now.
User avatar #882 to #855 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, and you're 36. Allow me to leave for a moment to LAUGH MY ******* ASS OFF!
User avatar #943 to #882 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
>implying he can't POSSIBLY be 36 because everyone dies at 30.
User avatar #883 to #882 - jdonaldson (01/04/2013) [-]
Actually I am 111 and a compulsive lair.
User avatar #860 to #855 - luiselvergas (01/04/2013) [-]
every time you call a magazine a clip a gun enthusiast gets prostate cancer please dont call a magazine a clip
User avatar #871 to #860 - jdonaldson (01/04/2013) [-]
I have been shooting all my life. Clip Magazine who gives a **** . No one uses clips anymore.
User avatar #895 to #871 - snickerstheif (01/04/2013) [-]
Mosin Nagant's use stripper clips man
User avatar #884 to #871 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
Stripper clips are used to reload standard SKS built in mags... You should know that
#910 to #884 - captaindestructo (01/04/2013) [-]
sks doesnt have a 30 round "clip" its a built in 8 round mag that can be loaded with a clip. if it really does hold 30 then it is an aftermarket removable mag, dont defend your ignorance, there is nothing wrong with being wrong unless you pretend you are still right
User avatar #917 to #910 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
You must be confused. I never said any of that. The sks has a 10 round built in mag, loaded with stripper clips. 30rds is definitely aftermarket, and in my opinion they don't work right most of the time, unless it's one that takes the AK mags. Then that would be the case.

Chill bro... we be all cool here
User avatar #851 - dafogman (01/04/2013) [-]
Nothing says you love your daughter like an anti-rape device!
#837 - thenipplenator Comment deleted by thisisestonia [-]
#827 - empithree (01/04/2013) [-]
i'd tap that so hard it would spit bullets.
i'd tap that so hard it would spit bullets.
User avatar #817 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
I guess you all think that is an assault rifle... it is not.

Assault rifles are banned in the USA, and have been since the 80's

It is a semi automatic rifle, and has no special features that make it more "deadly" than any other gun.

This picture is just as legit and "scary" as her holding a wood stock hunting rifle.

It just has the look of the military version used. It can only fire one round per pull of the trigger.

Also before ZOMG usa is full of gun deaths! SO VIOLENTS?! ZOMBG!
Watch this and get the stats straight. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Now... Let's address the real issue, mental health care in the USA and the over use of SSRI / Drugs like Prozac that increase suicidal tendancies.

Also... inb4 "He got the guns!" He did'nt... he stole them, just like any other thief would. The system worked and stopped him from purchasing 5 times!
#889 to #817 - Sabre has deleted their comment [-]
#892 to #889 - Sabre has deleted their comment [-]
#845 to #817 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
unless you have a class 3 license as of 2004
User avatar #852 to #845 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
Yep, and a class 3 is a pain in the ass to say the least, and those people will not be going out and shooting people for a couple bucks.

Much more strict and harder to get any class 3 stuff.
#873 to #852 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm not arguing, I'm just saying they're not technically illegal. That said, if someone who did have a real illegal full auto rifle nobody would be able to tell the difference unless they were close up.
User avatar #877 to #873 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
Not arguing either, just saying so those hating on our 2nd amend rights know it's not just filling out a form and being done.

Also cool an anon comes back to comment
#835 to #817 - majorkilljoy (01/04/2013) [-]
First of all, let's say this is a real gun.   
This is where you are actually wrong.  By law it is an assault rifle, it doesn't have to be fully automatic to be considered an assault. I can legally go to a gun shop, and pick up an assault (wait three days.)    
Here is the definition:    
Here is the definition according to Connecticut:   
First of all, let's say this is a real gun.
This is where you are actually wrong. By law it is an assault rifle, it doesn't have to be fully automatic to be considered an assault. I can legally go to a gun shop, and pick up an assault (wait three days.)
Here is the definition:
Here is the definition according to Connecticut:

User avatar #847 to #835 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
Further, the Oxford dictionary is the more official english language dictionary.

User avatar #843 to #835 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
You failed to read that did'nt you?

"Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire."

Key feature there... switching between semi and auto fire... That gun does not have that. Further any full auto capable, or even burst fire weapon is heavily monitored by the ATF.

Further if you want to just take the horribly incorrect first bit "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"

Key point there is "Military use", that gun is not designed for military use as it does not have burst fire capability which our military uses.

Please learn more about firearms before you try to take away something. That's like asking to ban pokemon because some look like the devils work.
User avatar #820 to #817 - darthjangopwnz (01/04/2013) [-]
... I want an M1919
User avatar #822 to #820 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
gotta jump through all the ATF and FFL BS on that one... but it would be fun to have. Enjoy the ATF taxes and stalking they do if you get one.
User avatar #826 to #822 - darthjangopwnz (01/04/2013) [-]
yeah, talk about it. I might just stick with a 1911 for now.
User avatar #836 to #826 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm not a fan of 1911's for EDC, but they are fun to shoot and look nice on display.
User avatar #801 - bookyle (01/04/2013) [-]
why the hell does everybody assume that it is a real gun? It could very well be an airsoft replica with the orange tip removed/painted black. Airsoft stuff are so accurately replicated that they look like the real thing if you don't look at the trade marks closely. Also owning a fully automatic rifle requires a FFL that only those 21 and over can qualify
User avatar #821 to #801 - olem (01/04/2013) [-]
Notice how she treats it with respect, aiming in a safe direction, and finger off the trigger.
This rifle has a 16" barrel like most civilian AR-15s, and it's most likely semi automatic, not fully automatic. She's not the legal owner, her father is.
User avatar #1120 to #821 - bookyle (01/04/2013) [-]
Everyone I know treat their airsoft rifles with respect too. Just because she is treating it with respect doesn't necessarily mean it is a real gun.

Also airsoft rifles can get just about any length barrel and some are even compatible with real steel attachments such as RIS and the sights
User avatar #1177 to #1120 - olem (01/05/2013) [-]
I know, I'm just going with what I think is most likely here. She's a young American teenage girl, the rifle has a 16" barrel which is uncommon for an airsoft AR-15 since most are modeled after the M4A1 specifically. If she was of any other nationality, I'd have no choice but to agree with you.
User avatar #773 - splitpeasoup (01/04/2013) [-]
MOre people in the USA killed with hammers and other "blunt instruments than rifles".
the facts are the facts.
#1142 to #773 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
12644 Murders in 2011, and 8583 involved the use of a firearm.

Facts are te facts
#1139 to #773 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
haha. 605 deaths by hammer. Thats is but a drop in the bucket compared to actual gun deaths. The article is stupid properganda.

More people were killed with hammers than with a particular model of hair dryer built between certain years in western provence on Uganda.

That is a heavily biased article.

Be carefull what you read and what you believe or people will take advantage of you.
#1008 to #773 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
more people are killed by hammers, may as well let everybody shoot each other
User avatar #888 to #773 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
Don't cite fox news, they are horrible. Use this instead
User avatar #1096 to #888 - splitpeasoup (01/04/2013) [-]
the stats are from the FBI. this is just the link that has the story in a summary. the fact that it is on fox doesn't matter.
User avatar #1126 to #1096 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
Should be true but people see fox, and just will assume propaganda. The least biased option possible the better, or a combination of both is ever better.
User avatar #798 to #773 - logicstrike ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
and more people are killed by honey badger related injuries than great white sharks, which would you share a swimming pool wit?
#1128 to #798 - liquidz (01/04/2013) [-]
User avatar #1097 to #798 - splitpeasoup (01/04/2013) [-]
the shark because they can't survive in a pool.
#777 to #773 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
>fox news
>not propaganda ********

pick one
User avatar #803 to #777 - xtremehivoltage (01/04/2013) [-]
And "High Caliber Rifles?" More people are killed by the lowly, small-as-they-come .22LR cartridge than any other bullet. Take THOSE FACTS to ABC and see if they get published. (That was rhetorical; they won't)
#765 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
i wish my daddy would get me an ar15
User avatar #761 - haaaxderp (01/04/2013) [-]
I'd marry the **** out of her.
Hot blonde+gun lover=Perfect wife
User avatar #807 to #761 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Perfect redneck couple right here.
User avatar #764 to #763 - haaaxderp (01/04/2013) [-]
User avatar #762 to #761 - haaaxderp (01/04/2013) [-]
Assuming she's not a minor, she looks like 18-19ish.
User avatar #771 to #762 - doobiesnax (01/04/2013) [-]
she is a Jr. in high school
User avatar #772 to #771 - haaaxderp (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm a sophomore.
Still counts.
User avatar #774 to #772 - doobiesnax (01/04/2013) [-]
damn i feel old
User avatar #775 to #774 - haaaxderp (01/04/2013) [-]
How old are you, bro?
User avatar #778 to #775 - doobiesnax (01/04/2013) [-]
I guess I am a....Brodette? And I am 21
#804 to #778 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
Please.. the term is bra, or chick.

User avatar #809 to #804 - doobiesnax (01/04/2013) [-]
Well thank you. It was obvious that I was oblivious to what I should be called.
User avatar #776 to #775 - haaaxderp (01/04/2013) [-]
Oh. You're a girl.
that changes everything
#759 - rollmania has deleted their comment [-]
#751 - Accidentalninja has deleted their comment [-]
#743 - qjmihuia (01/04/2013) [-]
**qjmihuia rolled a random image posted in comment #42 at school walls ** 'murica
User avatar #737 - neutralgray (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm not sure if I want to justify this or attack it so I'll just move on doing neither...
#735 - hoykun (01/04/2013) [-]
**hoykun rolled a random image posted in comment #2329557 at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic ** mfw
**hoykun rolled a random image posted in comment #2329557 at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic ** mfw
#734 - spartanarmy (01/04/2013) [-]
um...Why is there no trigger?
#738 to #734 - refaim (01/04/2013) [-]
um...right where it should be?
User avatar #736 to #734 - doublefatjack (01/04/2013) [-]
there is, it's right in front of her finger, her hand is covering the back of the trigger guard
User avatar #730 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
jesus. you guys are allowed to buy those? no wonder people get ****** up all the time. that's not for protection, or hunting for that matter. where's the sport in hunting with a machine gun. it's just asking for trouble selling guns like that. the majority of people (myself included if we were allowed military style assault rifles in england) would just use it very carefully and keep it safe but that's irrlelevant when anybody can buy them!
#754 to #730 - Mahazama (01/04/2013) [-]
As stated, it's not a machine gun, it actually is semi-automatic, and is commonly used for hunting.
It is virtually identical to this hunting rifle, an M-14.
#733 to #730 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
1. you're ****** retarded.
2. that's not a machine gun, they're illegal here. That's a semi automatic rifle.
3. We have the ability to own rifles to ward off a hostile government. read your history books, yours was the first one we had to overthrow.
4. The last time Brits wanted us to lay down our weapons, we kicked you the **** out of our nation.
#742 to #733 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
More of a mutiny than warding off a hostile government , don't make it sound righteous, it wasn't US vs UK it was we the people of the new world want to have a say over what goes on here instead of the king being their figure head when he lived in England.
User avatar #731 to #730 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
inb4 - we have the right to bear arms
- **** you england

we have around 30-40 gun murders a year. yes, 30-40 and there are around 70 million people here.
User avatar #844 to #731 - lilnuggetbob (01/04/2013) [-]
Fun fact, the homicide rate is Great Britain rose from .08% (per 100,000) to .67% (per 100,000) when gun control was instated.
User avatar #850 to #844 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
here's another; even though our police are unarmed, there were only 3 policemen shot and killed between 2000-2011. that's a cool little fact for all of those people who think we're mad not to arm our regular police.
User avatar #854 to #850 - lilnuggetbob (01/04/2013) [-]
Gun control reduces gun related crimes, but increases non gun related crimes, and homicide rates grow, and another thing, the more guns privately owned in America, the lower crime rates go.
User avatar #862 to #854 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
i'm sorry mate but that's bollocks. you're telling me that having gun control causes more homicides? i can see what you're saying in that if you want to kill somebody but you don't have a gun you will need to do it another way, but it certainly doesn't lead to more murders :/
User avatar #869 to #862 - lilnuggetbob (01/04/2013) [-]
Fun fact: Criminals with guns are LESS likely to kill whoever they are robbing/attacking.
Also homicide rates in America are always high, well because i don't want to sound racist or anything, but we have some people that like doing crime more than others.
User avatar #874 to #869 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
where are you getting your information from? :O
User avatar #879 to #874 - lilnuggetbob (01/04/2013) [-]
Also that is NOT a machine gun, it is a sporting rife, a machine gun has select fire, and can go fully automatic.
User avatar #876 to #874 - lilnuggetbob (01/04/2013) [-]
Unlike most people, facts, and i understand what you are saying, you are from Britain, when this kinda **** doesnt really matter, but it is much bigger in the US, and also, the highest crime/homicide rates reside within urban area, that are poor, populated by African American "gangsters", it also has the lowest private gun ownership.
#1143 to #876 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
Britain has more non-whites than the states. If race is your argument (of course it is, its never the white man with a guns fault)
User avatar #1145 to #1143 - lilnuggetbob (01/04/2013) [-]
That wasnt an argument in that comment, it was a statement, and white people do crime also, just well "gangsters" (of black and white people) tend to do alot more crime.
#746 to #731 - stonecore (01/04/2013) [-]
Bushmaster Ar-15 civilian modle, why do you think it should be banned, the lovely ruger mini 14, will fire the same round, just as accurate as the AR-15, but no one seems to belive it show be banned because it is made out of. Sometimes i think people who are afraid of guns think they fire these
#744 to #731 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
How many rapes and violent crimes compared to the US? How many gun crimes now and how many in 1993?

Toothy ******* never want to talk about that **** , do you?
#1144 to #744 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
Regarding the UK crime wave every american happened after tightening gun regulations.
One day one of you hill billy's might actually do some reaserch before you soak up the NRA souther properganda and embarass youselves on the internet.

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.
User avatar #757 to #744 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
you think that guns were legal in england up until 1993...?
#741 to #731 - tyroneisanigger (01/04/2013) [-]
Assuming we are talking about America, I'm going have to say there is way more than that. If you account for the gun related injuries, it's easily in the hundreds.
User avatar #755 to #741 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
i did the maths the other day and in 2011, there was aproximately 1 gun murder for every 33,000 people in america. in england and wales, there was 1 gun murder for every 1,400,000 people.

i don't understand how anybody can argue with those numbers.
americans say they need guns for protection, but they only need guns for protection because everybody else has a ******* gun! i don't have a gun, just like i know nobody is going to rob me at gun point.

#1014 to #755 - quad (01/04/2013) [-]
the main purpose of the right to bear arms is for protection from a government that has stepped outside of its constitutional powers.
#784 to #755 - tyroneisanigger (01/04/2013) [-]
Well, I own a gun for protection from other people with guns, and I'm sure that's why everyone else owns guns too. But yes, gun deaths are less likely in England, but that's only because guns are illegal there.
#853 to #784 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
but let me guess, youve never used it for protection and you dont know anybody who has
User avatar #795 to #784 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
that is exactly my point. in 2011, you were around 42 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in america than in england. its a vicious circle and because it has been embedded in your constitution for so long the chances are it won't change. it doesn't make it the correct situation to find yourself in; i would much rather live in a country with gun control. we can still use guns to hunt and we can still go to a shooting range and shoot hand guns, but they stay at the range.
#786 to #784 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
buys gun because other people have guns
other people will buy guns because you and everyone else has one
soon every household has guns
tension and paranoia rises.

you really don't see the problem in this?
#1027 to #786 - quad (01/04/2013) [-]
there is a town in georgia where it is mandatory except under a few exceptions for each household to own a firearm. the crime rate is the lowest or one of the lowest in the nation. It works. link provided [url deleted]
#1032 to #1027 - quad (01/04/2013) [-]
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
#1146 to #1032 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
Population 29,000. Statistically it would be years between major crimes anyway.
#1030 to #1027 - quad has deleted their comment [-]
#789 to #786 - tyroneisanigger (01/04/2013) [-]
Can be a potential problem, just make ******* sure your gun is bigger + better than theirs lol.
#792 to #789 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
people constantly one ups other people.
civilian weapon race, everyone is trying to get the biggest and best guns.
people start displaying that they have bigger guns.
paranoia goes through the roof
nobody trusts each other

yeah I'm sure getting bigger guns would solve everything.
User avatar #808 to #792 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Finally, an anon with logic!!!
User avatar #781 to #755 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
311,592,000 people in the united states
62,262,000 people in the united kingdom
about 5 people in the united states for every 1 person in the united kingdom
5206 people in london per km2
10519 people in new york city per km2
53.78 violent crimes per 1000 people in london
9.21 violent crimes per 1000 people in new york city
8,174,100 people in london in total
8,244,910 people in new york city in total
population difference of 70810 between london and new york city
44.7 more violent crimes in london per 1000 population than new york city
.007 violent crimes per person in london
.001 violent crimes per person in new york city

Violent crimes are: Homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burgurlary and theft of a motor vehicle.
Arson was not counted due to new york not releasing arson rates for 2010.
Theft was also not counted because both new york and london had an extremely high amount of non-violent thefts.
#1147 to #781 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
You cant just compare crime stats.
The UK records victim statements as crimes aswell. The US does not.
Do some study into criminology. Murder rates work best for comparisons
Google comparing crime rates between countries. here ill help you
"The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries."
#857 to #781 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
new york is one of the safest cities in america, you should try comparing detroit
User avatar #824 to #781 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
we were only talking about guns but yes if you want to compare new york city with london for violent crime per capita then you have obviously done your research on numbers there and i have no basis to dispute that because i can't be bothered. however, if you take london, manchester and liverpool out of the question, 3 cities from the uk, then i bet new york has more violent crime than anywhere else in the whole of great britain not just england and wales. also, you jumped straight to our most violent city. from what i hear chicargo and detroit are pretty violent.

i just had a look, chicargo had 506 murders last year and although this cant be 100% accurate, it would appear (from the steady 400-500 murders per year chicargo is the proud owner of) that 75% of these are gun related. therefore that 1 city in 1 state in your entire ******* huge country has around 10 times more gun murders than the whole of england and wales combined in the year.
#1036 to #824 - quad (01/04/2013) [-]
the guns used in the murders are for the most part not legally owned
User avatar #834 to #824 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
I just took the most populous cities in the USA VS. the most populous city in England. Also with a larger society comes a more violent one, have you ever seen how congested New York City is?
#859 to #834 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
again, comparing by population proves nothing except that population vs violent crime is unrelated. Try per capita in both countries, or just detroit
User avatar #872 to #859 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Comparing the most populous cities proves nothing? and the United States is EXTREMELY more populated than England, comparing the whole countries would be impractical. And on the note of Detroit: It's in an extremely **** economic state which does lead to more crime no matter what country you live in.
User avatar #838 to #834 - Seventeen (01/04/2013) [-]
i've never been, mate; all i can play around with is numbers and numbers make america look insane.
User avatar #842 to #838 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Numbers don't show the real picture, there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, most people who own guns don't even think about committing a crime with any of their guns.
#861 to #842 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
most people who end up murdering someone dont. It's when someone pisses them off that they grab their gun in the heat of the moment.
User avatar #870 to #861 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
People get mad at others everyday, do you see 300 million murders on the news almost every day?
User avatar #739 to #731 - JLT (01/04/2013) [-]
Lol it is really easy to make semi-auto firearms automatic. all you do is file down the seer a little bit.
User avatar #767 to #739 - thelastamerican ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
You're a moron.
User avatar #768 to #767 - JLT (01/04/2013) [-]
i'm sorry how?
User avatar #770 to #768 - thelastamerican ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Show me a picture of the sear in an AR, then circle the places that need to be altered. If you get this question right, I'll retract my comment.
User avatar #780 to #770 - JLT (01/04/2013) [-]
Well first do you know what the sear even does on an AR? I will use the C7 for my example because that's the rifle I know the most about. The sear when set to Repetition prevents the bolt from sliding all the way back into the cocked position until the firer releases the trigger. when set to full auto the bolt is free to slide back and forth until all rounds are expended from the mag. the reason is because in full auto the sear lays flat and will not catch the bolt. therefore if you detail strip your weapon and file down the sear it will not stop the bolt..
User avatar #785 to #780 - thelastamerican ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
I could have copped and pasted that as well. Show me a picture of a sear from the C7, witch is the M4, made by a different company, and circle the parts that need to be altered. Until you manage to do this I maintain that you're a per-pubescant wannabe gun nut living in Canada.
#794 to #785 - JLT (01/04/2013) [-]
you are an idiot i'm 18 and been serving in the Canadian forces for 2 years. unlike 80% of funnyjunk i've fired a C7 stripped it the works. i don't need to copy and paste anything. btw it is not "parts" the sear is a part of the firing mech.
User avatar #800 to #794 - thelastamerican ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Good for you. I appreciate your service. This does not, however detract from the fact that you're spouting out your ass about modifying a civilian fire arm by 'filing it down' parts need to be added you nincompoop, not taken away. (well, I take that back partially, some parts need to be replaced entirely, and some need to be altered) The reason I say parts is because the entire firing group needs to be shifted around to accommodate for the changes made. It's not easy, otherwise the entire civilian world would have a fully automatic AR. I am at this very moment finished with this conversation. I did not thumb you down by the way. That would the the other people floating about.
User avatar #686 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
OK, FJ, I'm gonna try something called "reasoning" (yeah, I know, bad habit of mine):

Several hobbies that would suit her age (regardless of gender):

-Musical instrument (guitar/drums/bass/piano/whatever)
-Defensive Martial Arts (like Aikido, don't let me catch you with MMA or other testosterone-heavy stuff)

Now, out of all of these potential hobbies that are constructive in at least one way (body & mind improvement, aesthetic constructiveness and such), WHY do you people consider so appropriate to receive a BLOODY FIREARM that is almost half her size and who's sole purpose it to destroy stuff?!...
User avatar #846 to #686 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Starting here, since we've reached our reply limit on the other reply line. And I studied, and still do study, politics. Just because my primary job is a rifleman doesn't mean I can't know how to do anything else. Then again, I can't expect someone as closed-minded as you to know that without haven't it spelled out for you, can I? And that's part of my point: America is ****** UP! We have stupid people and greedy, corrupted government. So how the **** is it being paranoid to expect the government to take advantage of us? How is it paranoid when the government is training marines (not me, I'm in the Army, not the Marine Corps) to operate within the US borders, the US is using drones to spy on it's own people, taking away their means of defense, and trying to move to socialism? I am not paranoid, and you are an ignorant, naive asshat. Please stay in Europe, we have enough idiots to deal with here in the US, thank you.
User avatar #878 to #846 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
>Implying that US Government actually uses drones to spy on its population, when it has Facebook with all you retards reporting every **** you take on it.
>Implying socialism is "something evil, boo-hoo-hoo, keep Satan's socialism away from us".
FYI, the countries with the best standard of living ARE socialist (take Finland, for instance).

You want actually stupid and greedy individuals running the Parliament & Government?! Come to my country, grunt.
At least YOU have actual politicians, who have been in politics for generations and (with a few exceptions) don't actually get there without a serious background.

BELIEVE ME when I tell that your Government is not even a quarter as evil and greedy as you think it is, you paranoid.

"Taking away their means of defense". Yes, since a firearm is THE ONLY POSSIBLE means of defense.

Here's the irony: You pride yourself with "AMERICAN FREEDOM, ************ !", yet you claim that your Government is controlling you and your private freedom.

IF there is anything that your Government controls, then that is your mind.
You see conspiracy theories everywhere, the Government is evil, the Government is bla-bla-bla, yet you're the same chaps that pride with ultimate freedom, keeping you in a state of mass paranoid-schyzophrenia, or to put it mildly, subconscious confusion.

IF the Government is so ******* evil as you say, WHY THE **** would you give it the ultimate proof of your trust, which is YOUR VOTE?!
IF the Government is so ******* evil as you say, WHY THE **** would you ENROLL IN ITS SERVICE?!
User avatar #923 to #878 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
To answer your last two questions, because I won't be part of it when it happens, and when it does happen I can give my training to others if that is what it comes to, plus I get free college and awesome training in areas that are useful for the private sector.

I voted for someone who would have shrunk the government and fixed the economy. Obama is evil. Romney was easily the lesser of two evils. Socialism/communism works well, I understand that. However, Capitalism works so much better. I don't equivocate Socialism with Satan, unlike you I actually understand both systems. And how the **** do I fight off Marines without explosives or guns? A sword? Dumbass. And yes, it's as bad as I say it is. Don't believe me? Obama approves drone strikes on areas free of Al Qaeda members. What's more, he has the gall to pay off people to say that drone technology isn't as accurate as the video games say they are. However, I actually know people who ******* FIRE THE DAMN THINGS and they are every bit as accurate as portrayed in Call of Duty. Now I am not saying that this is what happened, (let me reiterate this since people like you LOVE to take things out of context, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED) but I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama magical fairy princessistration planned the Aurora/Newtown shootings to get people to want more gun control.

If the government controlled my mind they wouldn't have me hating them. That's just....good God.

And as far as greedy, our government practices economic policies that slowly forces the private sector to its knees and transfers all of the peoples money into its own wallet. So yeah, we are pretty evil and greedy. The whole American Freedom deal no longer applies. Not since Obama took office. We have had 17,000 pages of new legislation from his cronies ALONE. I would love to restore America to its former glory, but I just don't see how that's gonna happen right now.
User avatar #1125 to #923 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm not talking "mind control", per se. Just the methods of keeping the intellect of the majority dull.

And honestly... you can stop at the "Obama is evil". Now I realize your mental capacity and feel sorry for you, you poor thing.
User avatar #1127 to #1125 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Oh, now I just read the last paragraph. Well ******************** , I had a gut feeling when I called you a loonie as big as Dave Mustaine or Ted Nugent, because those 2 ********* also believe that Obama staged those shootings so he can ban guns.

I would also like to point that you're willing to believe that your President can stage some mass shootings, but find it so hard to believe that the US Government ALLOWED Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to take place.
User avatar #1133 to #1127 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
There is no evidence period to suggest that we knew Pearl Harbor would happen, and there isn't conclusive evidence to support the conspiracy theories behind 9/11, and I only said I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that way. And yeah, Obama IS evil, he should be impeached and tried. But you haven't heard about the Benghazi cover-up, have you? Of course you haven't. But that doesn't matter! I have a different opinion than you do about gun control so everything I say about anything is wrong! Obama is an evil man who cares nothing for human rights or life. Don't believe me? Look at his drone bombing campaign, look at his proposed legislation, and look at Benghazi. Please stop acting all high-and-mighty, as though you know what's going on. But, answer this first: WHY THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS THAN AN AMERICAN WHO ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THIS **** !?
User avatar #1136 to #1133 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
"Obama is an evil man who cares nothing for human rights or life"

Last time I checked, Obama was pro gay marriage (i.e. basic civil rights for people with other sexualities) and clearly he is NOT anti-abortion (pro-life, my ass).

There is no evidence that your Government knew about Pearl Harbor? How about the fact that the Japanese codes were broken long before Pearl Harbor?
No evidence against the Government allowing 9/11? How about the owner of the World Trade Center, Silverstein, that in that very day made a 99 year ensurance contract (from what I remember), DOUBLED, since there were 2 towers?!
Or the fact that his family, in that very day, were told not to be at work?

There are dozens more evidences against those 2 incidents than the mindless, redneck worthy idea of the President staging some shootings.

So, once again, I need not hear more from you than "Obama is an evil man" to realize your intellectual capacity.
User avatar #1141 to #1136 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
I cant believe this. I even capitalized it so you wouldn't mistake it: I DON'T BELIEVE HE STAGED THE SHOOTINGS! I just said I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out he did. And he made his gay rights stand SIX ******* MONTHS AGO, and only said it to gain votes for his re-election. Again, YOU KNOW NOTHING OF AMERICAN ******* POLITICS! And, again, I said no CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE! And we didn't break Japanese naval codes because we had no reason to. Why would we ever want to break their codes to begin with? Again, you suppose you know American politics and history BUT YOU ******* DON'T! Just stop trying you insolent little **** , you're making yourself fit the holier-than-thou stereotype we have for Europeans.
User avatar #1149 to #1141 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
"we didn't break the Japanese code because we had no reasons to"

Are you ******* retarded? (Don't answer that)
Ever heard of counter-intelligence during wartime (inb4 US was not yet in WW2)?!

"Busting Codes and Foreign Agents

Despite US Secretary of State Henry Stimson’s oft-quoted comment that “gentlemen do not read each other’s mail,” by 1941, the United States had built a world-class intelligence capability.

After World War I, American intelligence efforts focused on code breaking and counterintelligence operations against Germany and Japan. "

www.cia.gov/kids-page/6-12th-grade/operation-history/history-of-american -intelligence.html

Bloody ******* idiot.
User avatar #1157 to #1149 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
I have a counter argument to that, but I will not address it until you address mine:
Why do you think you know more about American politics than I do, when you clearly don't? There. You have nothing else to counter or answer. Answer that.
User avatar #1174 to #1157 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/05/2013) [-]
Because of several reasons:

- The fact that I don't live in the US gives me a privileged position of that of an observer; not being in the middle of it all grants one a certain degree of objectivism, being able to see the grand picture of things
- The fact that you ARE world's #1 military & economically superpower, go figure, makes the rest of the world keep an eye on your economics (or rather, your economical policies), because, guess what, we're inadvertently affected by what you do
- Third (and the smallest of reasons) is because, living in a country rather close to the Middle East, it is of particular importance of us what conflicts/military actions the US directs in the region

Also, there is the fact that Americans (well, the majority of them) are very narrow-minded, 90% of the time think that the world is America and a few other countries, so they wouldn't know nor be informed on how living in other countries is like, how implementing different social and economical measures work!
That's the reason I mentioned Finland (and the other Scandinavian countries) who have the highest standard of living IN THE WORLD.

Oh, not only that, but us Europeans, besides our own countries' history, we also tend to learn about others' as well.

With these reasons (and others that are not so important in mind), I can safely have an idea on what happens in America and what is potentially beneficial for it.
And stuff like regulated weapons and a more social health system is much, MUCH needed in America, trust me. Not to mention that certain Laws have become so absurd, yet they still are in function, leading to completely idiotic resolutions (the Kinder eggs being banned in the US pops into mind).

Now go, take 10 mins and reconsider your life and why us, the Europeans, fully support Obama and do not consider at all that he is "an evil man" (such a childish argument)

P.S.: Wanna see an evil president? Google Ion Iliescu and the mineriads... yep, WE had him & the SOB still lives
User avatar #1175 to #1174 - therealpokemon (01/05/2013) [-]
How is he not evil? He literally approves the drone-bombing of children's hospitals in Pakistan, a country we have no conflict with. And did you ever consider that Socialism isn't a magic bullet? Contrary to popular belief, there is no perfect economic system. Capitalism works just fine in America if we leave it the Hell alone. Regulated weapons goes against the document that literally founded the nation, and plus Australia tried that and look what happened to them. We don't need centralized healthcare because that would require a complete rewrite of our economy. We'd have to go from Crony Capitalist (what we are now thanks to government) to Socialist in a week, which isn't feasible in a small country, let alone one as big as America. And about that Ion Iliescu, I'm sure he was a bad guy, but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't bad. Matter of fact, he's even worse than Jimmy Carter, and that is SAYING SOMETHING.
User avatar #926 to #923 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
lol ad.min filters
#756 to #686 - Mahazama (01/04/2013) [-]
A lot of hobbies aren't constructive, but people still do them.
This rifle is actually used for hunting. It is semi-automatic, which means it fires just as fast as this rifle.
User avatar #732 to #686 - guiguito ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
i just gonna say
maybe she asked for it.
still more construtive than an iphone
or a car
User avatar #749 to #732 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
A phone lets you communicate with people (even though I personally hate smartphones, iPhones even more)
A car is used for transport from point A to point B.

HOW THE **** is a weapon more constructive than a phone or a car?!?
User avatar #928 to #749 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Only a ******** like you could hate smartphones. Smartphones are superior to all other types of phones, and I have memorized specifications to defend that point.
User avatar #952 to #928 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Let me re-state that: I hate the **** out of phones with touchscreen. I hate the feel of being a retarded monkey swooshing my finger against a screen. I like a keypad/keyboard for my phone, thank you very much.

As for the phone specs, I respect them. Even though I find completely annoying the Facebook-obsessed people who MUST check their status every 5 seconds and use a phone to permanently stay connected to the Internet.
User avatar #956 to #952 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
What I meant was that even though I disagree, I can't argue to the contrary.
User avatar #955 to #952 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Still sounds pretty stupid to me, but that's an opinion and can't be argued.
User avatar #752 to #749 - guiguito ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
are you for real?
User avatar #805 to #752 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
YOU are asking ME if I am "for real"?!

#856 to #805 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
I find it's generally the least educated in our society that results to calling people "redneck" when their idealism is confronted.
User avatar #814 to #805 - guiguito ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
iphones makes annoying brats
and young people crashes cars
and a gun, well you can't even fire it at a bird.
i wonder why are you so angry about guns, or why are you using so much capslock
User avatar #816 to #814 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
"young people crashes cars"

And dumbass illiterate kids murder the English language.
User avatar #832 to #816 - guiguito ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
why am i still speaking to you?
you are like seven or a mom that goes to wesboro.
i love when people losing an argument insult my grammar
there is like a ton of posts regarding this.
and if you are trying to troll, i am sorry for you son, i've got 99 jimmies, you rustled none.
User avatar #839 to #832 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Well then it's sad that a 7 year old has got a better grasp on English than you.

In either case, you're still a ******* retard for stating that a gun is more constructive than a car or a phone.

#848 to #839 - guiguito ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
i would be surprised if he din't, since english is not the world native language, you have no argument to defend your point of view, therefore you make use of caps lock and low end insults, either way you are an alchool
User avatar #929 to #848 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
User avatar #1158 to #929 - guiguito ONLINE (01/05/2013) [-]
i guess
User avatar #864 to #848 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
I don't give a **** . It's not my native language either, but I won't make a mockery of my 12 years-or-so of studying it.

And WTF does "you are an alchool" even mean?! (Besides the annoying obvious ponyfag attachments)
User avatar #723 to #686 - muchasmarcos (01/04/2013) [-]
Most contrys in the western world have abolished mandatory militarry service or have none for women. My country has abolished the service several years back and ofcourse noone knows how to operate a gun anymore. I learned how to operate a gun while taking security classes.
User avatar #724 to #723 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]

Why do you consider it mandatory for people to know how to handle a firearm?!
User avatar #1134 to #724 - muchasmarcos (01/04/2013) [-]
Cause you need to deffend your self if the militarry fails at protecting your country.
User avatar #1137 to #1134 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]

Knock-knock joke:

-Who is it?

Seriously, that's the level of intelligence of your statement.
Jesus ******* Christ, defend yourself if the military fails... Yeah, those Reds gonna get you, any day now.
God ******* dammit, you are stupid.
User avatar #1138 to #1137 - muchasmarcos (01/04/2013) [-]
sorry but i come from a country that has been invaded less than 20 years ago and have seen my house get torched twice while i was a 3 year old kid. u don't know the reality of
User avatar #930 to #724 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
He never implied that.
User avatar #702 to #686 - haloforlife (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm 16 about her age and i go to survival (killing animals, skinning them, cooking and eating them) and i use guns a lot, to be honest the younger they start the better because it teaches people to respect guns and of how dangerous they are, not only that that is an airsoft gun.
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #793 to #702 - tylerconnell (01/04/2013) [-]
That is exactly what I was thinking. I figured it was an airsoft gun with no orange tip

+1 for you
User avatar #713 to #702 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Surviving skills aside (which only come in use if A) You're stranded on a trip somewhere in the wild or B) Fallout happens, have fun surviving it), why oh why is it so much more "appropriate" to learn about guns?!?
#728 to #713 - anon (01/04/2013) [-]
you just said incase fallout happens
User avatar #718 to #713 - haloforlife (01/04/2013) [-]
Because people like firearm enthusiasts love guns, I'm interested in military history, and a large part of that is guns, and maybe she's in the NRA and like i said that's a airsoft M&P15 MOE.
User avatar #721 to #718 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
And can you show me an American that is NOT a "firearm enthusiast" (beside select few that I respect... like Sigourney Weaver)?!

Your gun culture has gotten WAY overhand, if you find perfectly normal for a 16 year old girl to have an airsoft rifle for Christmas. The fact that you cannot comprehend THIS simple fact makes us, the rest of the world, be very wary of US's population.
User avatar #935 to #721 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Do you seriously think that there aren't hundreds of millions (I literally mean hundreds of millions) of people in America who aren't firearms enthusiasts? I mean, take all the people who are irrational gun haters such as yourself, then add all the people who don't care enough about guns to learn about them. What you just said was the same as me asking you to show me one German who doesn't love Rammstein.
#691 to #686 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
idk maybe because its NOT innapropriate, and a firearms sole porpose is not to destroy stuff.
User avatar #687 to #686 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
You forgot self defense, marksmanship training, etc. Shooting is more than a means of killing. I love few things more than going to a range and firing weapons just for the sake of doing it. Does it have any reason behind it? Not really. Then again, neither does stamp collecting or ping-pong.
User avatar #689 to #687 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Fine, if you want "shooting" as more than a means for killing, pick up bow shooting.

And self defense?! With that rifle?!? Yeah, she's totally gonna carry it in her backpack.

And once again, out of all the hobbies, it had to be "marksmanship training". Because some people can't think of anything else.
User avatar #694 to #689 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Home defense. It looks like a 5.56 or a .22 caliber rifle, which is perfect for injuring and not killing someone. Matter of fact, that's what the 5.56 was designed for - injuring and not killing. Anyway, bow shooting isn't even close to as fun. Have you ever fired a gun at a range? I mean a real gun, with a large round, at least a .30 Carbine cartridge. It's way, WAY better than a bow. And I would know, I've used both. Guns > bow.
User avatar #696 to #694 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, home defense.

Ever considering buying a better lock/door? Or locking your door, in the first place? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/garden/14nolock.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Is pepper spray too beta for you? Or a tazer?
#706 to #696 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
you can build an immunitie to pepper spray and tazers dont always incipasitate people besides so why should a risk useing something that isnt garenteed to proserve my saftey when i can easily and perminately end the threat of a violent home invasion with the movement of a finger
User avatar #711 to #706 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
OK, first of all, I had to take 5 mins to decipher your post... "you can build immunity to pepper spray". ******** ! Have fun building immunity to something that affects your eyesight due to chemicals.
"Tazers don't always incapacitate" - are you ******* kidding me?! I don't think you realize the effects of high voltage over the body's nervous system.
If tazers "don't always incapacitate", why are your police officers trained to use them?!?

"I can easily and permanently end the threat of a violent home invasion with the movement of a finger"
Translated: I'm a soon-to-be murderer waiting for an excuse to kill somebody.
Seriously, the idea that you can end someone's life "with the movement of a finger" doesn't make you think, reconsider things?!?! AT ALL?!?
User avatar #924 to #711 - defender (01/04/2013) [-]
1)building a immunity to OC (pepper spray) is possible
2) do you know how rare it is to find that one person the taser doesn't work on which means it still works on the majority of the people which means they will keep it
3) Unless you have received training and sat through countless powerpoints and demonstrations of tasers and OC I suggest you shut the **** up
#747 to #711 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
the ones police officers use dont always work because if the electrodes dont make complete contact ie by wearing thick clothes they wont penetrate the skin and it doesnt complete the circut, police officers only train with tasers because it gives them an option to use less than lethal force, why should i be limited to something that only has 1 shot and isnt always gonna work on someone, besides every police officer who gets issued pepper spray has to get sprayed with it in training do you know why that is? its so they can learn to deal with it and wont be incapacitated by it by training to build a resistance
User avatar #704 to #696 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Do you sincerely think a better lock will solve anything? Then you obviously don't know the power of your average human male. I am a slightly-above-scrawny wimp and I can kick open a deadlock. Now imagine what a regular strength man could do. Furthermore, pepper spray is only effective at like one meter. A taser is pretty useful, too. But nothing beats a gun. I point a taser at someone, they run away and possibly come back. I taser them, they go down, police come and get them, they get released in a year or less from prison. I miss my mark and kill them with my gun, they never commit a crime ever again. I hit my mark (very likely since it would be close range), they are incapacitated, same scenario as the taser but they are less likely to rob a house since they have now been shot in the process of doing so. You're just a gun control fanatic who's so anti-gun that you would resort to abandoning logic and shotgunning (see what I did there?) random responses in a pathetic attempt to counter my arguments. Good day, sir.
User avatar #708 to #704 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
IDK, most of us here have metal doors with 3 locks. Have fun breaking that.

"I taser them, they go down, police come and get them, they get released in a year or less from prison"

Then outright shoot them in the head, if that means protecting yourself. But then, of course, you become a murderer. JUST BECAUSE "you don't feel safe".

You don't feel safe?! Either get your head checked for paranoia or, like the dude above said, MOVE OUT!
Point-in-case: you people are so stubborn realizing that maybe, JUST MAYBE there is something wrong with the area you live in that you refuse to move from Tornado Alley!
User avatar #760 to #708 - Mahazama (01/04/2013) [-]
You're obviously letting your unfounded opinion affect the rational part of your brain.
User avatar #712 to #708 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
I would never aim for the head you moron. See, right there you prove your ignorance. NO ONE aims for the head. It's a tiny target. You aim for the chest. Besides, I would aim for the lower torso so I could put them down without killing them because death is only an option of someones life is undeniably threatened. Like, if they were trying to hurt my family, THEN I'd double tap them in the chest with the intent to kill. You assume that just because I am not afraid to take a life that I am looking for any excuse to do just that. And how is it paranoid to accept the fact that I may be faced with a dangerous person who wants to hurt either me or my family? New flash, smartass: we live in the REAL ******* WORLD, where some people will hurt you without a moments hesitation. Unlike you, I will be ready to face these people. And it's not murder if someone's life is in danger. Otherwise, I would not kill them. Unlike you, I actually have training with firearms, so if I want to hit them in the leg, arm, or wherever, my bullet is going to go right there. So if someone dies at my hand, you know it was necessary. Only an ignorant buffoon like you could rationalize that every single gun owner wants to kill everyone that touches their property. Your reasoning is pathetic and you know nothing of the world of firearms except that people misuse them.
User avatar #719 to #712 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
" Like, if they were trying to hurt my family, THEN I'd double tap them in the chest with the intent to kill"

Like I said, you're a murderer waiting to happen. Have your head checked. Seriously.
Double-tapping is a clear expression of a "express intention of murder"


You are calling ME a "smartass"?! If your "REAL ******* WORLD" is a place where all the people are potential threats to you, I would move the **** out of that world. Seems like a ****** neighborhood to me.

You will be ready to face these people. Allow me to LAUGH MY ******* ASS OFF.
You're probably a 16 year old in front of the Internet, raised in gun culture who thinks that gunning down a person is a perfectly normal.


"So if someone dies at my hand, you know it was necessary" - Who the **** made you Judge Dredd?! Your so-called "training with firearms"?!

"Only an ignorant buffoon like you could rationalize that ever singe gun owner wants to kill everyone that touches their property".
So far, you have more that proven your very point, you're simply WAITING for it to happen so you can just pop someone.

Seriously, you ARE deranged, go get checked.
And for the sake of society, get rid of your firearms, buy better locks and try thinking about living PEACEFULLY, for once!
User avatar #727 to #719 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
OK, now watch me dissolve everything you just said:
It's not murder if it's legitimate self defense. Like, I wouldn't kill someone who was trying to rob me, I'd fix my gun at them and hold it like that until the police arrived. If he made a move for a weapon, I'd shoot him in the arm to disarm him. If my life was definitely threatened, or if the life of someone else was DEFINITELY threatened, then I would kill the perpetrator.

I am not expecting to be assaulted, I am prepared for it. What you said is like me calling you paranoid for turning your stove off; "Dude, you expect your house to catch on fire and explode? You're so paranoid." Same exact concept.

And, as I CLEARLY stated before, there are SOME dangerous people. SOME. Unless, in your limited vocabulary that doesn't exist.

I am 19 and I have been to boot camp. Hard to get more trained than that, at least when it comes to using a basic rifle. And "gun culture"? Are you kidding me? We have guns. We use them. Big deal. The whole gun culture concept is as ****** up in the head as that Aurora shooter.

I am not a murderer if the killing is justified. Justified here means it was either he (being the one threatening others) dies, or someone else who was innocent.

Just because I am not an ultimate authority doesn't mean I cannot discern what is and isn't right or wrong. I can tell if lethal force is necessary, that's part of what it means to own a firearm, but then you wouldn't know that since you clearly don't own one, do you? Thought not.

And, lastly, I have made it beyond clear that I would only kill if it was necessary. You are a child who believes in gun culture fairy tales and would rather have the rights of everyone around you stripped just to satisfy your own need for supposed moral superiority. Oh and just so you know, moral superiority wouldn't have saved those kids in Newtown. A teacher with a gun could have. Just saying.
User avatar #745 to #727 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Those kids wouldn't have needed saving if the retarded child's mother hadn't OWNED guns in the first place.

Simple logic: treat the cause first.

And the ONLY way where killing is somewhat-justified: if you're in the army, protecting your country. INSIDE your country, if I may add.
Lethal force may be necessary is some situations, but it SHOULD not be exerted by civilians, only by authorities.

And I'm not "a child who believes in gun culture fairy tales". I'm a 23 year old person who is in a country where getting a firearm is both expensive and rather tedious.
Most of the crimes here involve knives, bats or cheap swords, at most.
Guess what? Our gun policy WORKS! So does the rest of the EU!

Why is it so hard for you to accept/recognize that something may be flawed in your case?!
User avatar #753 to #745 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
The issue isn't that she owned guns, numbnuts. The issue is that she didn't store them properly, as she should have since she had a mentally troubled child. And a teacher with a gun still could have saved the kids.

And there is the reason why it can't work in our country: we can't trust our authorities. I am in the military, but only for now. I want to take my training and college scholarships then get as far away from being owned by the government as possible. America's government is evil. Our 2nd Amendment was put in place specifically to defend ourselves from an oppressive government if that's what happened. And look at our current government, what our president has done. We need our weapons in case the government tries to take away more than just our second amendment rights. Once that goes, we are powerless to stop our government from taking away our rights. Same with every country, yes, but we at least thought of a way to, hopefully, prevent that. But, no, we have a country full of idiots like you who would rather suck the governments dick than be responsible for our own safety.
User avatar #769 to #753 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
"The issue isn't that she owned guns, numbnuts"

Stop here. Reconsider. If you can.

Oh, and the "America's government is evil". There you have it. Without any proof or evidence, you ASSUME that your government is evil. Exactly my point when I say that the 2nd Amendment is built solely on paranoia.

You want to know REAL evil government?! Try coming to a former communist country, that for the past 23 years has been ruled by the former, 2nd grade communist leaders that have willngly sold in the 90's most of what the former Communist Party actually built for the country. And I could go on and on for hours.

"Would rather suck the governments dick than be responsible for our own safety".
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that "taking it against the MAN" was in the 80s (or whenever).
I'm not sucking anyone's dick, you redneck dumbass. You (and your country) couldn't exist without your Government.

And as I said a thousand times already, your precious 2nd Amendment isn't going to do **** against the world's most powerful military. THINK, goddamit, THINK!
#787 to #769 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
ya and a bunch of sand sucking terrorist with ak's couldnt force out russians with tanks either, there are hundreds of millions of more guns in america owned by americans than there are people in the american military, the reason gun control works in eu is because you all have been pacified by your liberal pussy leaders and been herded like sheep, at least here in america i dont have to worry about being arrested by the emotion police for hurting someones feelings in the internet
User avatar #797 to #787 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
"the reason gun control works in eu is because you all have been pacified by your liberal pussy leaders and been herded like sheep, at least here in america i dont have to worry about being arrested by the emotion police for hurting someones feelings in the internet"

You're utterly retarded for that statement, you know that, right?

Yes, we believe in peace & thriving through prosperity & mutual understanding (along with the obvious political & economical leverages, of course). But you, just like the retarded bloke that almost ran for US Presidency, just want to blow stuff to smitherenes.

Oh, and between the EU and the US population, guess which is herded like mindless sheep with the use of mass-media?
Heck, the US Government had to make a public statement in 2012 that a zombie apocalypse is NOT happening when the bath salts case happened. That goes to show how good Americans are at "free thinking"
User avatar #779 to #769 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Oh, you are serious? OK, let's go historical, asshat:
Virtually every single government that was given enough time went oppressive. There's a ******* REASON your country isn't communist anymore, giving government that kind of power never, EVER works for very long. So the Founding Fathers knew that government would be evil if given too much power so they instituted this as a means of defense. Back then, an average Joe had the same individual weapons as any government. And you honestly think that we can't do anything against our military? I was trained to fight a civilian army. An army with AK-47's and RPG's, and various other illegally obtained weapons. And look what a couple thousand civvies did to the most powerful nation on earth. They have successfully held their own for years. Now imagine what five million people could do. Not to mention this oh-so-powerful nation literally went head to head with Britain, the then-most powerful country on earth. We are more than a threat to our military, why do you think our government doesn't just take away our rights right now? Because they know they can't take them away just yet. This sounds paranoid, and yeah, maybe in your perfect little country it is, but here in America, we are at risk. You wanna sit in your room all day pretending everything everywhere is perfect? Fine by me. But I will be busy living in the real world preparing for the inevitable power grab that's waiting to happen. You don't know **** about America's politics, so who the **** are you to tell me I'm paranoid? If you knew what our government was doing, you'd be singing a different tune.
User avatar #790 to #779 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
"But I will be busy living in the real world preparing for the inevitable power grab that's waiting to happen"

Go get lost, nutjob. This says enough about you and your whole's state of paranoia.
User avatar #791 to #790 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Awwwww how adorable. Dude knows he's got nothing because he doesn't live in America so he's basically just telling me to **** off. You know it'd have a lot easier to just ell me you don't know enough about what's going on in America.
User avatar #802 to #791 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
No "inevitable power grab" is going to happen, you lunatic. You are about as sane in that statement as Ted Nugent and Dave Mustaine, retarded rednecks who see enemies everywhere.

And get your history checked: when the US went against Britain, it wasn't yet the "oh-so-powerful nation" that the US is now.

Like I said, you have your rifle. The US Government has tanks, assault helicopters, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers and most of all, NUKES.

IF the US Government wanted to bring you under heel, it would do so in 24 hours. Refuse to yield? Get nuked.
THAT is an evil Government, you dumbass.

Oh, and FYI, no major warfare will occur any time soon. Because no one (mainly the US, Russia and China) has any interest in that anymore. It's all going to be economical, information & technological warfare, with few armed conflicts here and there.
That just goes to show that not only am I more aware of what's inside your country, but how things move in the world as well.

BTW, pro-tip: The US Government wouldn't want a civilian uprising or anything of the sorts because of one main reason: it's not profitable.

Like I said... THINK, GOD DAMMIT!
User avatar #810 to #802 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
Ha. You honestly think that the government would nuke its own people? Not now, at least. At first they'd have 5 million people to fight. If they used a nuclear weapon, it'd be the government vs. half their military, most police forces, and 315 million pissed off Americans, plus whatever countries would rather help American civvies. So nukes are out of the question. Furthermore, our tanks, helicopters, and stealth aircraft has still let us to lose thousands of soldiers. Again, I am trained to fight in Afghanistan; I know how a civilian force operates. They use cheap tactics like guerrilla warfare. We can't appropriately defend against that.

Furthermore, you can't actually say that it isn't going to happen. You don't know JACK ******* **** about what goes on in America, so WHO THE **** ARE YOU TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!? Answer that question. Oh right? YOU ******* CAN'T.
User avatar #812 to #810 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Who am I?

Unlike you, I am educated person, not someone "trained to fight in Afghanistan". You mindless grunt.
User avatar #813 to #812 - therealpokemon (01/04/2013) [-]
THAT'S WHAT I ******* THOUGHT! You are some random ass from EU who knows nothing about American politics so GET THE **** OUT.
User avatar #828 to #813 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Point-in-case: In your marvelous country, a Court in California has taken one of the most absurd, illogical and retarded decisions ever:

And this is just a MINOR example on how your country is so ****** up.
User avatar #815 to #813 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
I do think I know more of ANY country's politics than a trained killer. Get lost, grunt.
#693 to #689 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
ever consider home defence?
User avatar #698 to #693 - randomserb (01/04/2013) [-]
Idk man, I wouldn't feel comfortable at all knowing I need a gun to defend my home.
User avatar #695 to #693 - randomserb (01/04/2013) [-]
If there is a need for defending your home with a firearm, you should probably move to a different country.
#701 to #695 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
what your saying as it would be easier and cheap enough that uprooting your entire life leaving all your friends behind and leaving your home behind and having to quite your job just to move to a different country is a better option that owning a firearm to use to defend yourself if your home gets broken into
User avatar #703 to #701 - randomserb (01/04/2013) [-]
Eyup. People move all the time for less drastic reasons than potentially losing their lives in a burglary.
User avatar #725 to #703 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
Smart people do that. Idiot people still live in Tornado Valley (for instance)
User avatar #726 to #725 - randomserb (01/04/2013) [-]
Exactly my point.
#707 to #703 - skullbash (01/04/2013) [-]
not all people can do that and not all people are willing too
User avatar #709 to #707 - randomserb (01/04/2013) [-]
Let's leave it at that.
#678 - funnyrage (01/04/2013) [-]
nuff said...
#676 - zombiestookmybike (01/04/2013) [-]
i really am.
User avatar #672 - huszti (01/04/2013) [-]
reminds me a bit of the girl that accidently shot her brother on new year's. they wanted to shoot photos with a gun for facebook. she actually pointed the gun at his head and the gun went off...
in case you missed it: You need to login to view this link other-in-head.html
#683 to #672 - silasdg has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)