Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#812 - beastybaconman (11/21/2013) [-]
Thanks obama
Thanks obama
User avatar #755 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
and then all of fj turned into one big butt hurt flame war
#752 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
'Murica, always bitching about any single events that happened. Let us European sitting and watching those so called "New World people" manages their country.
#707 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
Funny how most Americans never cared about guns, but now, suddenly they can't live without them. It is like they're all little kids. Always wanting to play with the toy that they've been told not to touch.
#726 to #707 - spidahridah (01/18/2013) [-]
Americans have always been ass-sniffing their guns and gun rights. What are you talking about?
Americans have always been ass-sniffing their guns and gun rights. What are you talking about?
#717 to #707 - phonerstonerboner (01/18/2013) [-]
Seriously? Ignorant Eurofags are one thing but you're just delusional. Our very government was written with the clause that we need to take up arms if the government gets to controlling. We've for firearms since before we we're an independent nation.

You just got 'Murica'd.
User avatar #811 to #717 - avengeralpha (10/08/2013) [-]
Are there not clauses in that constitution that asks for it to be updated as times go on?
User avatar #719 to #717 - phonerstonerboner (01/18/2013) [-]
I just accidentally some of my sentences...
User avatar #715 to #707 - therulethirtyfour (01/18/2013) [-]
Said like a true non-American.

Where I'm from guns are a common conversation. What kind, preferences, gun control, etc... Both sides get represented equally. It's only until something like Sandy Hook happens when the rest of the world actually hears about it. Then it becomes national news instead of common conversation, spoken by extremists on either side.
#695 - bathoryhannibal (01/18/2013) [-]
It would be impressive if you managed to kill someone by shooting them with those darts. I should got to sleep. I'm having those weird thoughts again.
#679 - koenigkid (01/18/2013) [-]
#667 - godofworld (01/18/2013) [-]
like i give a 			****		.
like i give a **** .
User avatar #643 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Also banned is apparently making a "gun" gesture with your hand.

When is it enough?

#729 to #643 - xjiicx has deleted their comment [-]
#677 to #643 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
nothing to do with Obama **** off cunt
User avatar #742 to #677 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually, pretty damn related to the post, children who don't have these toys make gestures like this.

I know... the truth hurts, sure obama did'nt have something with that case. But he sure likes to make you feel guilty huh?
User avatar #619 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
before any more **** is flipped, i have a statement.

the government won't ban guns. the most they will to is ban semi-autos, the least they will do is put a higher tax on bullets. IT'S ALL GOING TO BE OKAY!
User avatar #731 to #619 - xjiicx (01/18/2013) [-]
<Soooo many purple lines... v
User avatar #690 to #619 - billysmall (01/18/2013) [-]
Semi autos are like 90 percent of all guns offered for civilian use..
A paintball gun is semi auto.
#760 to #690 - relentlesspoop (01/18/2013) [-]
and that's why they call them markers.
User avatar #793 to #760 - billysmall (01/18/2013) [-]
Next year

"Paintball assault rifles now banned"
User avatar #748 to #690 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i am drawing the broadest parameter i can.
User avatar #786 to #748 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
So... are you being sarcastic?
User avatar #803 to #786 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
it is like poking a bear with a stick.
User avatar #802 to #786 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
why yes, yes i am.

i knew what semi-auto meant in it's entirety, i just love to toy with people. do you hate me?
User avatar #806 to #802 - liquidz (01/19/2013) [-]
Hate, no. I just wish you put a hint before that you were kidding or being sarcastic as too many people I see are seriously taking that stance to ban nearly everything. With NY's gun law that was just passed as a prime example of how it can be.

Written so poorly even their police now are not exempt from it. Good luck to them trying to find 7 round mags for their pistols.
User avatar #642 to #619 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
a semi auto gun, is a revolver..... although i think if the gov tried to ban that many guns some **** would go down
User avatar #746 to #642 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
CORRECT! which is why it a maximum.

on a scale of one to ten i posted a -1 and a 15.
User avatar #649 to #642 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
It will go down. Semi autos include many hunting rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and just about the majority of guns on the market.

Assault rifles have been banned since the 80's, a citizen has to jump through alot of hoops to own a fully automatic, on top of paying a high tax, wait period, and yearly fees for owning it.

What is called an assault rifle by the news is just a semi auto that looks like the military versions.
User avatar #654 to #649 - datassman ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Meh. I prefer pump and lever-actions anyways.
User avatar #669 to #654 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Those are more fun to use in my opinion. But the reality of having to deal with multiple attackers, you can get overwhelmed unless you train constantly with them. Even then you are giving up a bit of time and invite human error into the mix.

Short stroking, injuries, bad positioning, etc. What happens when you have to operate with one arm because you are shot?
User avatar #675 to #669 - datassman ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Yeah I suppose. I'm more precise with manual cycling though so for distance I'd choose one of them.
User avatar #683 to #675 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm kinda mixed on the max distance benefits of a bolt action vs semi.

The performance difference I have seen is so small, but when out a a mile or so it might matter more. I never had access to a range that big to know first hand.
User avatar #691 to #683 - datassman ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Honestly I'd always choose a lever action. They're an easy motion, reliable, and I find it easy to keep aim with them. They're just a bitch to reload. I dunno what it is, I can't use semi-autos. I expect some kind of tactile confirmation that another round's chambered.
User avatar #634 to #619 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Banning semi-autos is banning almost all guns.

You do know what the reason for the 2nd amendment is for right?

Not for hunting, but for the preservation of your life, liberties, and those who would take them from you. That includes criminals and the government.

Ask yourself, how many rights will you let the government take from you before you have had enough. SOPA and PIPA almost passed... NDAA is in place, armed drones are approved for flight over our country. Your privacy no longer exists in any shape or form now. Your doctor has to tell the government anything and everything wrong with you now.

Where is your line in the sand?
User avatar #744 to #634 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
just don't worry so much about it, if the legislation falls flat it can be repealed. as for rights? the constitution and bill of rights can change, it is the beauty of the system.
User avatar #753 to #744 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Our government has a tendancy to not repeal laws. It's only happened a few times, and that really was only because it benefited them.

Prohibition on alcohol, government officials needed their drinks so bad they repealed it.

Further, to take away the right to protect yourself, even if you ignore the real use to keep the government at bay, it's a fundamental right. Look what happened in England, they can't even defend themselves in hand to hand combat against an attacker without facing jail time, fines, and more.
User avatar #768 to #753 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i never said scrap the 2nd amendment. don't put words in my mouth.

i think something should be done, but based off my scale do you at all know where i stand?
User avatar #782 to #768 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Just making sure it was clear.

Where do you stand? I would like to know either way.
User avatar #800 to #782 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
i am standing where a large portion of Americans are. admitting there is a problem and coming up with plans to fix it. we could argue all day on what "fix it" means, but in the end what matters is that something is actually done. if that means better security in schools, so be it, if it means steeper penalties and better background checks, fine. if it means banning certain weapons, sure. the point is that if nothing is done this stuff will keep happening and i think it is safe to assume that more dead civilians is a bad thing.

we live in a rather violent and complex time. truth is there is no easy fix and there may need to be some experiments done to see which ideas should be used and which should be scraped. as of now, pretty much anything and everything is on the table in some form and regardless of what the president thinks, congress decides what gets added and cut out.

does this clarify?
User avatar #804 to #800 - liquidz (01/19/2013) [-]
It does some. I want something implemented that will actually do something though.

I do not think a weapons ban will fix anything at all. Neither will magazine restrictions. Sandy Hook the rifle was'nt even used it was found in the trunk of the car. Aurora the majority of the wounds were caused by a shotgun and not the AR which had jammed. In Oregon the shooter stopped immediately when he encountered armed citizen resistance, and turned the gun on himself.

I approve of better background checks, and improvements to our horribly unsecure schools. Most schools don't even lock their doors when class start, let alone check who is entering before they even get into the building. Once in that's it.

Taking something away from me, because a few misuse it does not justify taking it away. Finding out why those few misused it and how to layer security to make sure that doesn't happen. That is the real fix.

The other part of the question, which I was wanting to hear but I did not make clear.
Where do you draw the line on what the government takes from you? Which rights?

I use the 2nd as the right to defend myself from whatever may present itself as a threat to myself, family, property, and the rest of my rights (free speech, privacy, etc) . Taking that away from me or other citizens leaves us with no way to secure those rights and liberties. I see people chipping away at the 2nd, wanting to get it down until there is nothing left. 30rd mags limited to 10rds, then 5rds... and keep on going. More features not being allowed, that do nothing to make the weapon more "deadly", but increase my functional use of the gun.

When folks say they won't do that, look at what they did with the NY law, making detachable mags, and hand guards an "assault weapon" feature. Effectively banning all guns. Forcing you to register them, which leads to confiscation down the road.
User avatar #807 to #804 - dafiltafish (01/20/2013) [-]
there, now you don't sound like a gun-toting lunatic anymore.
User avatar #808 to #807 - liquidz (01/21/2013) [-]
The majority of gun owners have the same stance as me, yet the media and other people keep pushing for bans on our weapons.

We know they won't do anything. We want you to know they won't do anything. But we get written off before we can say anything, because the media wants everyone to think we wake up and shoot our guns wildly into the air every morning, before, during and after breakfast.
User avatar #646 to #634 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
The 2nd amendment actually uses the words "well regulated."

Also, AR-15s aren't for protecting yourself, they're for mass killing.
User avatar #722 to #646 - phonerstonerboner (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually AR-15's use a .225 projectile (Civilian version of the NATO round) which has been banned in 10 states for being too under-powered to make a clean kill while hunting.

Quiz: what's the definition of "Assult weapon?"
User avatar #680 to #646 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
..Uh, no they're not. The whole purpose of the Second is to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government. And don't even try pulling the whole "hurr civvies can't defend themselves from duh military durr" ******** . History says otherwise.
User avatar #688 to #680 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Protecting yourself from government does not mean picking the heads off politicians with a firearm.
User avatar #693 to #688 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
..Political assassinations doesn't equal defense. If gun grabbers kick down your door, demanding you to hand over your guns, that's defense.
User avatar #694 to #693 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
But no one is doing that.
User avatar #711 to #694 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Feinstein has said in the past that she wants to ban all firearms.

It makes clear what the agenda is, they know they can't do it outright so they will do it one piece at a time. Death by 1000 cuts.

Remember that registration in the past has ALWAYS lead to confiscation.
User avatar #699 to #694 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
Yet. Nobody is doing that yet, because firearms aren't being confiscated yet. If it does happen, the nation will be in an uproar. What happened when the British attempted to confiscate firearms from the colonists, imposed high taxes, and established tyrannical rule? A revolution. History can repeat itself.
User avatar #702 to #699 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Let me rephrase that: No one is trying to pass laws to do that.
User avatar #727 to #702 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
NY's new law does not allow citizens to own more than 2 guns. They must either be sold or turned in.

They went through and banned essentially all guns there by classifying an assault weapon as anything having one trait they do not approve of. Including the following: having a removable magazine, hand guard, muzzle break, Forward grips, hand grip, and more.

They want to ban ALL guns, not just a few. You have to ask yourself why they want to do that. Even more ironic when they get to say they can carry their person guns where they want, but we can't.

Criminals don't give a damn, they will steal guns and have as large mags as they want. They will go out in a blaze of glory. Even if they get their way and ban everything, the criminals will switch to other weapons, or make explosives, or worse.

They are just disarming honest civilians.
User avatar #735 to #727 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
It's lawmakers overreacting to a tragedy. It happens constantly, and it always blows over.
User avatar #750 to #735 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
What happens when they actually get something through?

Why not demand they be more accountable to this over-reaction? When do we say stop exploiting children to push agendas?

If they are over-reacting, why do they go out of the way to make sure they can have them and we can't?

Is it okay for someone to be allowed to have protection just because they have more money or status than us?
User avatar #762 to #750 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
I would love to continue this debate, but Katawa Shoujo is more important than politics. Good day, sir.
User avatar #781 to #764 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Then you can wait an eternity!
User avatar #738 to #713 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
It's ironic how politicians try to create new laws and support new laws even though they go against the Constitution, therefore they're illegal. But even then, she didn't know how to properly handle a weapon? She even had a CC permit..
User avatar #684 to #680 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
That and our issues with Iraq, and those terrorists show their crude methods give even our highly trained soldiers hell.

People kinda forget about that when they talk about armed civies
User avatar #664 to #646 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually it lists several things:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia may own guns, the people may own guns, and further and this is key... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

An Ar15 or any other gun is used for defense for any number of reasons. Just admit you have the issue with the number of rounds. Which the case is that what about multiple attackers? We have gangs doing what they want now with little to no press about it. What about the government? When will you say they have taken away too many of your rights and want to fight back? 30rds per mag won't cut it.

But fine... ban the 30rd mags... make it 10... It only takes a second to put another one in. Which accomplishes nothing but a small delay for a determined killer.
User avatar #686 to #664 - Marker ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
The number of rounds doesn't matter to me. Let me put it this way for you:

If someone wants to own a handgun for home protection, fine.
If someone wants to have a rifle for hunting, that's okay too.
But an AR-15 isn't for hunting game, it's for hunting people.
I'm not saying all, or even any, guns should be banned, but I do think they should be better regulated, and with some restrictions, as to prevent another James Holmes or Adam Lanza.

And now onto your other statements: None of our constitutional rights have been taken away. Not by Obama, and not by Congress. SOPA and PIPA were stupid, but those were caused by a couple of wingnut congressmen who thought they could do whatever the **** they wanted (i.e. Lamar Smith). The fact that anyone gave people like him the time of day is scary, but that's over and done with now.

The NDAA has been passed in multiple versions in every year since '07. It mostly has to do with defense budget. The one that was passed for 2012 everyone flipped a **** over because they just believed what people told them. The NDAA 2012 does not let any officer barge into your house and detain you without due process, it allows indefinite detention for proven supporters of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban.

And finally, no law has ever been passed to stand in the way of doctor-patient confidentiality. Subpoenas/warrants are a different story, but that's for police investigations.

I question where you got these insane theories.
User avatar #796 to #686 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
People use ARs to hunt as well. It's always good to have the ability to place a quick follow-up shot.

User avatar #758 to #686 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
You sound like you approve of guns and being able to defend yourself.

But I seriously am asking what do you see that makes an AR only effective for killing people?

Further, assuming your stance, what says that handguns aren't banned next because they are only for killing people? The rounds not being effective enough for killing deer, or other game?
User avatar #708 to #686 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Correct it is the 2012 version of the NDAA people have an issue with. Read it a bit more carefully, as it does not clearly define supporters, and it does not list specific groups. The only thing close it does it say the supporters of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. If they want to group you into that set they can, you are whisked off and are not entitled to a trial.

You have no option to prove that you aren't affiliated with them.

Sure PIPA and SOPA were introduced by idiots, but it happen not once but twice. Then they tried it a third time ( I am forgetting the name of that bill at this time). PIPA and SOPA only failed to pass because corporations would have had to pay too much, so they pushed against it. Otherwise they would have went through. All 3 are direct attacks on your ability to have free speech by censoring the internet.

The doctor-patient confidentiality is broken as of the other day, with the 23 executive orders Obama put out. Allowing doctors to ask you if you own guns, report back to authorities if they think you are unfit, and introduces mental health checks (which have to be provided by doctors to the authorities) . They are far more reaching than they sound, even one says groups of people determined by the attorney general will not be allowed to own guns.

Further, what the invasion of your privacy? The NSA now reads ALL messages posted or sent through the internet, including email, and phone communications. What about the drones allowed to check on you, and your property 24/7?

What about an AR-15 makes it different than any other gun for "hunting people". All guns are designed to kill, be it animals or humans. Further if you refer to the round it uses they come in a variety of calibers. AR-15's are in .22LR, .223, 7.62x39, 308 and many more. 308 being often considered a hunting round. Nothing about an AR makes it more effective at killing a person than a hunting rifle. If you see something about it I am missing please do inform me.
#759 to #708 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
Magazine size makes it ideal for hunting people...Some Places in this world you can find humans in huge quantities, you would want a nice rifle with great precision, Easy handling,easy concealable, good range but if you are hunting large quantities of humans in their natural habitats, you must have magazines with 30 bullets in them.. You would be able to kill a few before the crowd scatters..when the crowd scatters, you must go to a more traditional hunting style. If you are going to use a traditional hunting rifle, which is not recommendable, you are going to be caught up reloading guns manually, which will make it much easier for Humans to recognize the treat and minimalize casualties within own ranks, due to their nature instinct of quick escape after first sensing danger. It is right that you can go hunt ordinary animals with a AR15, but its very unsportsmanlike, and here is an ordinary hunting rifle recommendable also because its more precise and classy. Hope that this guide wrote by a guy who never have held or have been near a gun helps..and for the butthurt people *No i have no experience neither am i planning to kill either humans or animals*
User avatar #763 to #759 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
I recommend you go to a range, shoot some real guns, talk with some real gun owners.
Guns do not work like you see in the movies.

Further if someone tries to "hunt" groups of humans, the hunter might find himself surprised when the hunted pull out their own guns and shoot him dead.

No longer can he focus on his prey, but must deal with this new predator that is determined to defend the herd. The herd then has more time to escape, and the hunter will find himself unable to continue his "sport".
#774 to #763 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
you definetly got a point, but you miss mine..Ar15 is just a more efficient-faster killer and that makes it better for "hunting people" . Ordinary hunting rifles is for long range kills on animals, you wouldnt have chance to go near in the first place.
User avatar #785 to #774 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Remember an AR-15 is a semi-auto weapon. Which means each time you pull the trigger it shoots once. Fully auto weapons have been banned since the 1980's and to be allowed to have one you must pay hefty taxes and get all sorts of permission from local and federal government.

Functionality difference between a hunting rifle and an AR comes down to ergonomics and reliability.
User avatar #783 to #774 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
The range capabilities for most hunting rifles and an AR are the same. It's all based on the round more than the gun.

An AR can take a "hunting" rifle scope, and a red dot could be mounted to a hunting rifle.

The real difference is ergonomics and reliability.
User avatar #625 to #619 - ixcarnifexxi (01/18/2013) [-]
Yes, let's ban the guns that require more skill and precision to use instead of the spray-and-pray trigger happy ones.
User avatar #751 to #625 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i did not say that. it is a likely assumption that gun licensing will become tougher and bullets costlier. it is a compromised deal and it will be dealt with accordingly.
User avatar #784 to #751 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Have you purchased a gun before? Let alone what the media calls an "assault weapon". It's not as easy as they make it out to be.

Not to mention all the restrictions put in place by the already existing 2000+ gun laws we have.

Making bullets more expensive does nothing except entitle the rich to own guns. The same people that want these restrictions and weapons bans because they can hire their own security teams or pay the fines for what is a minor inconvenience to them.

Sounds like a good way to make social classes even more uneven.
User avatar #801 to #784 - dafiltafish (01/19/2013) [-]
i understand what you want, but i am telling you it just won't happen.

i am merely speculating, as is the majority of people who have posted on this. sure throw all the statistics you want into it, but it won't change congress' mind(s). if you wish to take action write to your congressman.
User avatar #805 to #801 - liquidz (01/19/2013) [-]
I have been writing them, and I hope informing more of the public will help as well.

Most people don't know what an actual assault weapon is, or that they are already banned.

They don't know we have an absurd number of gun laws that vary from city to city or county to county. In some cases even having a carry permit in a state, you go to a city you have to pull over and unload/secure your weapon in the trunk before going through. Getting stopped with your gun could mean a felony charge if you don't.

People wanting to restrict something they know nothing about, is like grandma saying all video games are evil and wanting them all banned. As a gamer that would piss me off, especially if it had as much attention and foot hold as these proposals against the 2nd are getting. Mostly because not just members of congress, but citizens themselves are promoting them.

The irony of which is many of the people promoting gun restrictions and bans have armed security guards.

Occupy showed us that the rich don't give a **** , and empowering them further to be able to have the right to defend themselves while us "less fortunate" people can't just infuriates me more. That literally is saying that their life and property is more valuable and important than yours or mine.

I want to see something that works, and does not come after the 2nd amendment. We have enough laws already, more won't fix it. Laws were broken to cause Sandy hook, and that did nothing to stop it. In the real world layered security has and always will work.
User avatar #621 to #619 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
*ban ALL guns
#613 - GeneralObvious (01/18/2013) [-]
Looks like those guns   
got nerfed
Looks like those guns

got nerfed
#670 to #613 - liquidz (01/18/2013) [-]
Meanwhile another class gets buffed
#622 to #613 - ixcarnifexxi (01/18/2013) [-]
Ehhh errrr uhhhhhh yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaa? oooooook?? Yea, nice joke!
Ehhh errrr uhhhhhh yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaa? oooooook?? Yea, nice joke!
#572 - mgarrigan (01/18/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #644 to #572 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
every time these are posted, its always funny XD
#571 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
its another step in obama's plan to take complete control
#766 to #571 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
the president of the united states taking control of the united states?

#568 - sherbaderb (01/18/2013) [-]
Hey guys... What if Sandy Hook, and the Colorodo Movie theatre shooting, was planned by Obama.

Think about it. No one's going to **** with the government. They do what they want, to get what they want done.

20 children means nothing to Obama. Nothing except more cushioning to his gun control laws. Same follows for the victims of the Theatre shooting.

Government hires people to kill other people in order to pass laws.

I feel I'm wording this completely wrong, but maybe someone else can elaborate this theory better.
User avatar #698 to #696 - sherbaderb (01/18/2013) [-]

you can repost a picture from someone who commented with the same picture, on the same thread!
User avatar #685 to #568 - teufelshunde (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm really not sure how, or even if the government is involved in all the shootings. It's just really strange how they're happening one after another. Obama said he had no intentions of tampering with the Second if he's re-elected. Now he wants to get rid of conceal carry, semi-automatic rifles or more commonly known as "assault rifles", etc.
User avatar #648 to #568 - atkissonbr (01/18/2013) [-]
if that is the case, then these shootings are not going to stop in the future. they are only going to stop when these harsh gun laws are passed just to prove to the american people that guns were the problem. they can dictate the amount of panned shootings that will occur until the have all but taken all weapons. it is a very elaborate and possibly successful plan to disarm the american people.

that is only if the government is rally behind it.
#593 to #568 - maycontainallergys (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm going to make a hazard guess on this but what i'm sure the man means is that    
The government hires people to  do what needs to be done kinda like how in the game Hitman 47 is hired to do different jobs and in the second game finds out he was killing innocent people for &quot;The bad guy&quot;    
The goverment hires men to do various jobs to have things there way and POSSIBLY (most likely) punishes them for there actions later and betray them that's my take on that
I'm going to make a hazard guess on this but what i'm sure the man means is that

The government hires people to do what needs to be done kinda like how in the game Hitman 47 is hired to do different jobs and in the second game finds out he was killing innocent people for "The bad guy"

The goverment hires men to do various jobs to have things there way and POSSIBLY (most likely) punishes them for there actions later and betray them that's my take on that
User avatar #611 to #593 - alhemicar (01/18/2013) [-]
If you just spoiled Hitman: Absolution for me I'm gonna ******* kill someone

p....ppp...please tt...ttelll me youuuuu..oou were talkinggggg about a previous hitman game
#626 to #611 - maycontainallergys (01/18/2013) [-]
I was talking about Hitman Blood money (or maybe contracts...)  one of the two the one before that when diana dissapears but you don't know it because they didn't tell you and no one thought about it till the 3rd game
I was talking about Hitman Blood money (or maybe contracts...) one of the two the one before that when diana dissapears but you don't know it because they didn't tell you and no one thought about it till the 3rd game
User avatar #676 to #626 - alhemicar (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually in Contracts (the third game) he only finds out that someone is trying to kill him. In Blood Money he almost gets killed by the guy in a wheelchair but Diana saves him. But the assassinations he made were all because of money, he didn't care that the wheelchair guy would kill the President untill Smith takes out a fat purse of diamonds.
User avatar #689 to #676 - maycontainallergys (01/18/2013) [-]
Nice save on that never played bloodmoney just contracts and i was aware of another game never knew is name thought it was a smaller one in the seris
User avatar #692 to #689 - alhemicar (01/18/2013) [-]
well anywas thanks that you didn't spoil Absolution for me, I never got time to play it through
#624 to #611 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
there's 5 games in the Hitman series. He didn't spoil jack ****
User avatar #659 to #624 - alhemicar (01/18/2013) [-]
Here goes the award for the least intelligent comment of the month!
User avatar #716 to #659 - maycontainallergys (01/18/2013) [-]
there are 5 games my friend i thought there were 4 but there's 5

Title Release Platform(s)
Hitman: Codename 47 2000 PC
Hitman 2: Silent Assassin 2002 PS2, Xbox, GC, OnLive, PC
Hitman: Contracts 2004 PS2, Xbox, PC
Hitman: Blood Money 2006 PS2, Xbox, X360, OnLive, PC
Hitman: Absolution 2012 PS3, Xbox360, PC
User avatar #718 to #716 - alhemicar (01/18/2013) [-]
I know I've played Blood Money and some of Codname 47 but anon's comment was ********
User avatar #720 to #718 - maycontainallergys (01/18/2013) [-]
good point i spoiled part of one game
#591 to #568 - greatcornholio (01/18/2013) [-]
Is it just me or is his hand really ******* tiny?
User avatar #594 to #591 - sherbaderb (01/18/2013) [-]
Just you mate.
#584 to #568 - dedaluminus (01/18/2013) [-]
I think the silliest thing about conspiracy theories is that they assume the people in charge have any sort of a plan.
User avatar #592 to #584 - sherbaderb (01/18/2013) [-]
Well.. I'm not really saying it's true.

It's just a thought.
User avatar #577 to #568 - paintbucket (01/18/2013) [-]
fast and furious was an evil gun control plot.

the shootings? no.
i don't think obama's intentions are so evil he would kill children.
User avatar #585 to #577 - sherbaderb (01/18/2013) [-]
You never know.
User avatar #589 to #585 - paintbucket (01/18/2013) [-]
i guess not.
#559 - esplenade (01/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #550 - konradkurze (01/18/2013) [-]
banning everything?
thanks obama

You need to login to view this link
#544 - liberator (01/18/2013) [-]
I don't really get all of this "liberals hate guns and only conservatives love guns" ******** . Liberals can like guns too. Aren't liberals all for freedom anyway? In that case you'd expect them to actually be supportive of guns.
User avatar #609 to #544 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i am a liberal i guess, i do like guns. i just hate dead bodies and hate complainers. there is a compromise out there, but our government (the whole thing) is a bit too idiotic to reach it.
#557 to #544 - stupidshit (01/18/2013) [-]
actually liberals want more government control they want the government to take care of its people they think only the government should have guns because they are obviously smarter and more responsible then regular people
User avatar #651 to #557 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
obviously they are rand better at running than than us,. like USPS, its perfect -__-
User avatar #668 to #651 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
i do not know what happened to my english there...jesus. like the pic btw :D
#706 to #661 - skinless (01/18/2013) [-]
what the 			*****		 wrong with petals
what the ***** wrong with petals
#799 to #706 - petals (01/19/2013) [-]
#598 to #557 - stupidshit (01/18/2013) [-]
everyone thinks anarchy is chaos its not its more naturally right then government
#595 to #557 - stupidshit (01/18/2013) [-]
Im an anarchist so people dont listen to my views but if they heard them they would agree
User avatar #616 to #595 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
anarchy is simply a lack of government. chaos usually exists in a state of anarchy
User avatar #586 to #557 - hammarhead (01/18/2013) [-]
thats actually... pretty accurate.
#569 to #557 - liberator (01/18/2013) [-]
I see, thanks.
User avatar #543 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
I really want to know why all of the gun owners are clenches their assholes over the assault and clip size limit, firstly why do you need and assault or assault style weapon and second why do you need such large clips where is the necessity?
User avatar #630 to #543 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
its fun as hell to shoot fifty rounds into an old abandoned car
User avatar #739 to #630 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
why is that needed?
User avatar #756 to #739 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
who said its needed?you could easily live without funnyjunk right? so it should be shut down.
User avatar #757 to #756 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
but is funnyjunk a killing machine?
User avatar #777 to #757 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
no but it isnt necessary. sure guns can kill but more rounds are shot off at inanimate objects than people. its kind of a flawed logic. "the only purpose of a gun is to kill another human being" people like that have likely never fired a gun before. its fun as hell to cause destruction to something from 50m out. its also a great stress reliever. the reason most people are against gun contril is they love shooting. theyll rationalize it with self defense but pure and simple i like shooting targets. i like the bang of the rifle the kick in my shoulder and the smell of spent gunpowder
#553 to #543 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
DO you even know what an "Assault weapon" is?
User avatar #618 to #553 - Patheos (01/18/2013) [-]
I don't think you need either of those to defend yourselves. Politicians may call one an assault rifle, but I think you don't need either of them, unless of course you want to murder multiple people in a very short amount of time.
User avatar #724 to #618 - gmnz (01/18/2013) [-]
you probably have never lived or spent much time in the less tamed part of out country. i want to see you try and kill a few boar with a freaking bolt action rifle or even a seven round mag. feral hogs are one the most dangerous and populous animals in the south, they are invasive and aggressive, live in large groups, and there is one way to stop the problem. some people do NEED 30 round mags (newsflash! thats a normal amount, not high capacity) for jobs specific like that.
#761 to #724 - atr (01/18/2013) [-]
You sir, get a thumb. I've been helping folks out here in Texas with their Hog problems the past few months, and I've got an all out war planned for Spring break.
User avatar #645 to #618 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
Do You even Know What the 2nd amendment is for? Do you think anyone who owns a gun is a murderer? YOU DO KNOW THAT ONLY ABOUT 3.5% OF ALL GUN CRIME ARE LONG RIFLES? which "ASSAULT WEAPONZ" are a sub category of them? What makes those kids in Sandy Hook More important then those inner-city kids that are killed in drive-bys with pistols HUH?
User avatar #666 to #645 - Patheos (01/18/2013) [-]
The second amendment is basically for arming a militia against a tyrannical government. If you want to own a gun, sure. You don't and shouldn't need a long rifle or assault-style weapon to defend yourself. I know not all gun owners are murderers, obviously, but that doesn't mean you need or should really have either of those weapons, in my opinion. Of course, you are welcome to yours, and I mean no offense.
User avatar #771 to #666 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
what do you classify as "assault style"
User avatar #674 to #666 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
What part of "Shall not be INFRINGED" do you not understand. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government not anything else. A long rifle is any rifle you moron. Gun rights have already been cut in half and it is ILLEGAL FOR ANY GOVERNOR TO RAISE A MILITIA. The 2nd amendment has been ****** with enough because we can screen people who are of "SOUND MIND AND BODY" because of our mental heath system is a ******* joke.
User avatar #687 to #674 - Patheos (01/18/2013) [-]
You can still buy and own a gun, your rights have not been infringed upon. Also, the Constitution can and should change over times. That's why we have the amendment system in the first place. If you really think your rifle will defend you against the government, you are mental. If you think you will NEED to defend yourself against the government, you are also mental.
User avatar #773 to #687 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
have you not seen whats going on in other countries? also take into account that the US is a baby country. and still has to go through all the other **** that other countries experienced decades ago
#733 to #687 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
Look at you thinking every ******* yank has a reaper parked in his garage



User avatar #714 to #687 - gmnz (01/18/2013) [-]
i mean come on guys, everyone knows the government is always transparent and can be trusted, i mean its not like our government breaks laws (well except for grenada, or iraq, gulf of tonkin, patriot act, or well you know that stuff doesn't count because they all happened so long ago...).
User avatar #657 to #645 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
there are more people murdered with blunt objects than "assault rifles", and more stabbings than both. also the US violent crime rate has decreased 50% over the past 20 years. source? FBI's website and crime stats. only 3% of murders were done by rifles
#662 to #657 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
^			*******		 this
^ ******* this
User avatar #633 to #618 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
what if i want to murder a large amount of water melons in a short amount of time
User avatar #637 to #633 - Patheos (01/18/2013) [-]
There are other ways to murder watermelons.
User avatar #640 to #637 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
yeah but they dont have the satisfying splatter
User avatar #641 to #640 - Patheos (01/18/2013) [-]
What about a handgun? Or a shotgun? Surely a shotgun also makes a watermelon splatter.
User avatar #655 to #641 - sketchE ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
yeah but eight shots and the pump action isnt quite the same as mowing them down
User avatar #612 to #553 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
do you honestly need a 60 round magazine?
User avatar #660 to #612 - parttimezombie (01/18/2013) [-]
the AR-15 and AK47 i have shot...did NOT have 60 rounds. it was like, 25. also good luck pulling the trigger 45-60 times a minute and hitting your target
User avatar #732 to #660 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
60 round magazines are available, and who said you had to fire all of them off in a minute?

i do like guns, don't get me wrong. but as far as usage, most magazines over 25ish are a bit unnecessary for the average gun owner.
#632 to #612 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
Are you going to answer me Id love to hear your response because your obviously a gun expert
User avatar #723 to #632 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]
i had to take a phone call.
User avatar #617 to #612 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
No you Don't 60 round Beta mags jam like **** , but there going after 30 round Mags which are standard Capacity.

Tell me how much more Dangerous is a 30 round Magazine compared to three 10 round mags?
User avatar #721 to #617 - dafiltafish (01/18/2013) [-]

if someone is shooting someone else with a 10 round magazine they have to reload more than one who is using a 30, true? yeah, FPS 101, of course it is true. now while that guy is reloading, you and tackle him and disarm him.
#537 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)