Upload
Login or register
Back to the content 'guns' Leave a comment Refresh Comments (318)
[ 318 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#68 - elyiia
Reply +37
(01/30/2013) [-]
Oh god, not this **** again. I thought we were done with this.
#284 to #68 - undeadwill
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
It will not be done till we are free.
#7 - joekooldash
Reply -12
(01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile, under the Obama magical fairy princessistration...
#14 to #7 - hanabro
Reply -7
(01/30/2013) [-]
Obama doesn't want to get rid of pistols. Or shotguns, or hunting rifles. Just military-grade assault weapons that no civilian has any business owning anyway.
#42 to #14 - lyiat
Reply +16
(01/30/2013) [-]
I am so stupidly sick of this fallacy. No civilian can get ahold of a military-grade anything. The term "assault weapon", as currently defined in law, is basically any gun that looks "military like". It is a made up term that is not actually used in the gun world, and politicians arbitrarily used it to define semi-automatic weapons with 'scary features', like fold-able stocks and pistol grips. What you people seem to think is going to be banned are weapons like the M16 and the M4, assault rifles that have fully automatic and burst fire capability that can mow people down. What they are actually TRYING to ban are weapons like the AR15, which is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. It just looks more military like. You can read all about the damn thing here.

tinyurl.com/b2c39lh

Please, educate yourself about what is going on before saying such things.
#88 to #42 - defeats
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
The AR-15 was made for the US military, it is a military grade weapon. US citizens have no business what so ever owning a gun like this.
Yes the civilian sold rifle is semi automatic, but that doesn't really make it any less dangerous.
Most people who own them won't be using them to shoot targets or hunt, most will have them for "personal defence", but if you're able to carry one of these then someone who wants to do you harm can also own one.
Not to mention the fact that you won't be given the opportunity to use it.
#319 to #88 - lyiat
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
The AR-15 was originally designed for military use (as the M16), until the weapon was later sold to Colt in 1963, were it was redesigned from the M16 weapon system to the current civilian firearm you have now. The AR-15 in its current incarnation was not made for the military, it was designed with civilians in mind.
#184 to #88 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
I know several people who own an AR-15 they all use them for hunting..
#209 to #184 - defeats
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
So do I, but of the 2.5+ million of them owned in the states probably less that 1% are used for hunting.
#92 to #88 - thatguywhohasbacon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
You can't carry a rifle in public.
#101 to #92 - defeats
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Exactly, which is why having one as a personal defence weapon is ridiculous.
Inside your own home you'd be better with a handgun than a rifle.
#116 to #101 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
id be more worried about the guy breaking into my house with a shotgun than the guy walking down the street with a knife.
#134 to #116 - defeats
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
If someone broke into my home with a shotgun I'd much prefer to neutralise them with a handgun. A Snubnosed revolver for example
And handguns aren't being banned.
#231 to #134 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
which is strange because assault weapons only account for two percent of all gun crime. but think about it this way. the average person isnt going to be trained with a gun.i dont agree with that, i think all gun owners should have some form of safety training, but thats the reality of it. they may need more than six bullets. what if the guys on drugs? police are trained two to the chest one to the head but the average citizen isnt.

now lets get down to the real reason gun owners dont want them taken away. theyre fun as hell to shoot. go to an unmanned range set up random **** to shoot at and go crazy. its a blast.

i have no problem with better control of whos buying them. you want psychological tests first? fine. you want a gun license? fine. you want safety courses before being allowed? i will vote for that bill and sign up. just dont take away the fun guns that kill the smallest percent.

the issue is the current ban isnt trying to reduce gun violence. whens the last time you saw an NRA member go on a shooting spree? sure people that are trained with guns kill people. not too long ago a pro wrestler killed his entire family with his bare hands then killed himself. we gonna start cutting people arms off the moment they learn how to kill with them?

guns make killing a lot of people quickly easier. got it but ever notice where these mass shootings are? schools theaters, you know places where its illegal to have guns. yet we dont have one trained person with a gun to protect these places. courts have armed personel why cant schools?

its at this point i realise i went into a very long winded rant and am stopping now
#106 to #101 - thatguywhohasbacon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Call me paranoid but I have a rifle and a set of riot gear (ballistic vest, leggings, sleeves, helmet, gas mask, shield, etc) in case of a large scale riot or invasion on U.S. soil, I hope that neither of those will ever happen but just in case it's good to be prepared. If it's gonna be a choice of me or them it's gonna sure as hell be them if I can help it. (I have three magazines of rubber bullets for the riot scenario and three magazines of fmj's for the invasion one).
#43 to #42 - Whytemane ONLINE
Reply -3
(01/30/2013) [-]
Uh... ********.Give me just a moment and I'll have you to a link of people firing ******* CANNONS.
#44 to #43 - Whytemane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#45 to #43 - Whytemane ONLINE
Reply -2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Bam. https://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

If that's not military grade weapons, what the **** are you on?
#47 to #45 - lyiat
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
All the weapons featured in that video were created and manufactured before 1986, when the machine gun ban was enacted. Current legislation can not (and will not) touch them do to grandfather law. They existed before the legislation was passed, and are freely in civilian circulation. Further more, they are heavily regulated, requiring extensive, EXTENSIVE background checks and several government permits to own. Most of them are in incredible disrepair due to being nearly thirty years old.
#48 to #47 - Whytemane ONLINE
Reply -2
(01/30/2013) [-]
....You really only see what you want to see don't you? "Incredible Disrepair?" Dude. I guarantee those dudes treat those guns like babies. If it was in "incredible disrepair" they'd be dangerous to fire, would likely look like trash, and likely would not be allowed to fire on the range. ALSO, how the **** do you think FPS Russia gets his weapons? Those are CURRENT MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. And I guarantee you NONE of them are owned by the military, they're privately owned. Know your **** about guns before you make stupid comments you ignorant twat.
#49 to #48 - lyiat
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
No gun in that video is in common use by the modern day military. You can look them all up, individually, yourself. The closest thing to a modern gun in that video was what I believe to be a civilian variant Barret .50 cal Anti-Material rifle (and I could be vastly wrong on that one). You can not get current military technology for private use, it is against the law. No weapon present at that shoot was made after 1986, and the assault weapon ban will not affect any weapon present there. You can feel free to look up the federal statues on the subject yourself, and feel free to contact FPSRussia on the subject. I am well aware of who he is, and I know all the loopholes he has to go through to get his footage. It isn't pretty, and he is an incredibly lucky individual to get to do the things that he does.
#50 to #49 - lyiat
Reply -1
(01/30/2013) [-]
Let me correct myself. No fully automatic weapon or artillery piece present in that shoot was made after 1986. The sniper rifles (and anti-material rifles) are a different matter, and not subject to the discussion regardless because the assault weapon ban doesn't address them.
#51 to #50 - lyiat
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
I do not know the laws regarding sniper rifles or anti-material rifles, don't ask me. This is a discussion about fully automatic machine guns, which, again, are illegal if manufactured past 1986 and do not enter civilian hands under any circumstances. There is only one loophole I can possibly think of, and even then I think it'd be illegal. That would be someone retiring from the military, having the proper permits for machine gun weaponry under government statutes, and taking their service weapon home with them (which is possible for a fee).
#93 to #51 - thatguywhohasbacon
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
The .50 cal Barrett the military uses IS available for civilian purchase and is legal to own:
http://ww w.barrett. net/firearms/m107a1 The most up-to-date one starts at about 12,000$
#33 to #14 - brettd
Reply +5
(01/30/2013) [-]
I call ******** on that one. He wants to get rid of all semi-automatic weaponry, which would include pistols and hunting rifles. Not to mention the limit on magazine clips.
#76 to #14 - supermegasherman
Reply +3
(01/30/2013) [-]
"assault weapons"

you know its funny because my mini 14 with the plastic stock is considered an "assault weapon" but with the wooden stock its not. man how intelligent is that? that is the smartest law ever.
#32 to #14 - hoodedmetal
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
The AWB (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) defines Assault Weapons in 3 categories, Pistols, Shotguns, and Rifles and that is one of the acts that's in the air at the moment. so He is wanting to ban Pistols, Shotguns, Civilian Semi Auto Version of Military Rifles (And the Military Version obviously ) and their sale but i can own one legally afterwards, just not sell or give away without some red tape. and their business to own them is the Second Amendment but ill let another person argue that.

www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1022/text
#75 to #14 - trollnot
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
> military assault weapon
Dat use of buzzwords

What the **** do you think we are talking about here? Full-autos? They have been banned since 1986 you *******

>BUT DUH SEMI_AUTOS


You do know this ban would make an ar-15 illegal which fires a 223 round but the ruger mini 14 ranch rifle in semi-auto, same caliber and magazine size it would not? Tell me how this plan with stop gun violence,

You can sit here and play arm-chair activist all you want I actually went to my capital to march for my rights. Quit ******** on the constitution. I was at the capital the day they Gun-grabbers marched to show their support for the ban, And I can tell you that you people are not the majority.

In-fact you can go the CNN's website right now, They have started producing Pro-gun articles because of how bad their ratings dropped after that fat-jawed idiot Piers Morgan started his holy crusade by standing on the corpses of children to promote his agenda.

You are right in only one respect. NOW is the time to act, BUT with our "BRAINS" not our feelings. hundreds of children die each day in america because of handgun crimes.

"BUT DAH SUPER POWERED ASAULT WEPON!!"

No you can track down gun violence in america by city you can even Pinpoint it to neighborhoods. WHAT we need to do is put wealth into these neighborhoods, and increase education in these places. For mass shooters we need to fix mental health we also need to stop them from glorifying these mass shooters in the media like there some ******* war god.

"BUT DAT COST TO MUCH"
SO ******* what? cost to much do you realize how many people you will put out of a job by banning these rifles? Millions of **** sake. And saying things like "Our children shouldn't be safe because it cost to much shouldn't be a ******* answer. You should be ashamed for even using that god damn picture. Think with your ******* brain not your feelings.
#60 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
no he wants to get rid of weapons that look like assault rifles. fully automatic weapons are already banned ******* retard.
#66 to #60 - lyiat
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
You know, people like you make it so much ******* harder for people like me to defend my point. You can make a goddamn argument without being such a giant douche bag and insulting the other person. It undermines your argument and mine. Read below on how to actually have a goddamn discussion about this instead of stomping your feet and resorting to grade school insults. Grow the hell up if you want to be taken seriously.
#91 to #66 - thatguywhohasbacon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
THANK YOU!
#56 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
What ******* fantasy universe are you living in?! Miltary grade weapons have been illegal to own for decades. Semi-automatic weapons fire ONE shot with each pull of the trigger and are far from "military grade". Find me a military that issues rifles which are limited to semi-automatic only. You're a ******* moron.
#39 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
2nd amendment was so that we may protect ourselves from the government becoming too large (which they already have) we need assault weapons.
#19 to #14 - diegrammernazis
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
but the current jurisdiction on what is a military assault rifle is any gun that looks scary. (+ the obvious other reasons)
#17 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
God, the stupidity. It burns.
Protip: The second amendment was enacted so the people are on the same level of weaponry as the military.
#35 to #17 - brettd
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#21 to #17 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
that was in the 1700's when we could be invaded by england I think that won't happen now so it's kind of useless to have military grade weapons
#57 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
It wasn't to protect us from England, it was to protect us from the newly formed US government lest the government get too power hungry or overstep it's constitutional limits.
#24 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter. It wasn't made to protect against England; rather, it was created to protect the American people the American government.
#31 to #24 - sketchfactor
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Well if it gives civilians the rights to have the same level or weaponry as the military, then we better start distributing tanks.
Well if it gives civilians the rights to have the same level or weaponry as the military, then we better start distributing tanks.
#94 to #31 - thatguywhohasbacon
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
You can legally own a tank, and in most states drive it if you have street treads.
#86 to #31 - Zarke
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
Gladly. Sounds pretty ******* fun, actually.
#34 to #31 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Tanks would be impractical in urban warfare, and buying jet fuel for an Abrams would be fairly expensive, not to mention the cost of HE or AP shells.
But it I could afford one, I know I sure as hell would own one.
#38 to #34 - Azz
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
MFW my girlfriend's dad has a Bulldog tank sitting in one of their three barns...
#8 to #7 - joekooldash
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
the ****? FJ just trolled me.
#52 to #7 - whycanticaps
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
magical fairy princessistration*
#54 to #52 - whycanticaps
Reply +7
(01/30/2013) [-]
wat

stupid word filters. I thought I was gonna be a smartass, but noooooo, that backfired on me. good one addy, good one
#120 to #54 - opiethepug
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
The Obama magical fairy princessistration?

Testing: magical fairy princess
#124 to #7 - joekooldash
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
ok, i want to get something straight, the obama gun law wants to get rid of military and police grade weapons, but this would compromise our national security. the world views america as a bunch of gun toting loons, and thats the way we like it. you dont see any foreign nations attempting to invade our soil anytime soon huh? also automatic weapons are legal in some states with a class 3 weapons license.
#11 to #7 - fasthink
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
for saying magical fairy princessistration? Naw, FJ got rid of word filters like a year ago,,, they kicked ass
#77 to #11 - dudu
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
magical fairy princess? where are you?!
#15 to #11 - misledzach
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
I miss those
#37 - loganhusted
Reply +14
(01/30/2013) [-]
the 2nd amendment isn't there to protect your right to hunt. It's there to protect your rights.
#223 - TheRedDragon **User deleted account**
+13
has deleted their comment [-]
#290 to #223 - jinkazama
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Look at it like this.

A psycho goes on a rampage. He can do much more damage if he can easily get a gun. Not 100% the guns fault, but without a gun lives would be saved
#258 to #223 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Nice job taking the middle ground but not saying anything.

Do you have a solution?
#268 to #258 - voltkills
Reply +3
(01/30/2013) [-]
well i do, dont give guns to mentally ill people....
#274 to #268 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
well, yeah.

I, personally, advocate for the increased purchasing of non-lethal forms of protection (tasers, etc.)
#304 to #258 - TheRedDragon **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#13 - miscarriage
Reply +13
(01/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Just use a knife.

Although i'm still against the new law/whatever
#115 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
The law system is ****** though. If you used a knife on a burglar you can still be charged for carrying an offensive weapon and if you stab him, you will be charged will attempted murder. Even if you use your fists to defend yourself and you **** him up, you'll be charged with assault.

Well thats the way it is in the UK anyway, Westminster has gone done ****** up everything for everyone. Just recently they banned the sale of "Alien Plants" because it was a risk to native species, completely oblivious to the part of them allowing aliens (Immigrants) in to breed us out. According to the telegraph, if immigration rates stay the same, the whites will be the minorities by 2066.
#117 to #115 - miscarriage
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
You make a good point but in 'merica if you do it out of self defense i don't believe you would get charged with anything if they were trying to rob you.
#12 - IAmManbearpig ONLINE
Reply +10
(01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile in New Hampshire, if someone breaks into your house, shoot the ****** and if they make it out, drag them back in.
#20 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Lol that happened in coos county a while back
#194 to #12 - saladtongsofdeath
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile in dominican republic.... just shoot the ****** and bribe the cops will 5 'merican dollars
#253 to #12 - turbodoosh
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
"Live Free or Die" - best state motto/ life advice ever
#250 - shazmothree
Reply +8
(01/30/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people. Dolphins kill people... with guns
#256 to #250 - dachief
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
....and rape.
#278 to #256 - piobaireachd
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
is that Putin??
#276 to #256 - doyouevenupload
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#144 - steamboy
Reply +8
(01/30/2013) [-]
Dear lord no one is is trying to take your ****** 9mm away from you. Stop being a child.
#156 to #144 - LocoJoe
Reply -6
(01/30/2013) [-]
The fact you're taking anything away is pissing me off. Hey lets start banning assault speech. With all these kids suiciding we must protect the children! Think of the children!( yeah I can play that emtional card too)

You can't use words longer than 6 letters, no one NEEDs words that powerful.
You can speak, type, etc etc more than 60 words a minute, no one NEEDs to articulate that fast. You can't speak more than 20 words at a time, no one NEEDs assault speach.
#165 to #156 - steamboy
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Sigh...
#167 to #165 - LocoJoe
Reply -1
(01/30/2013) [-]
You are lucky. Almost went past the six letter limit there.
#189 to #156 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Stop being all redneck and take the time to actually read what the government is proposing. No one is trying to take away your guns. They're coming up with a stronger regulation to guarantee that guns are being used in a safe manner.
#195 to #189 - LocoJoe
Reply -2
(01/30/2013) [-]
LEGAL gun owners already use firearms in a safe manner. How about you look at the majority and quit focusing on rednecks who do stupid ****. Most murders with guns are committed by Trayvon shooting at Tyrone with his gat over a red bandanna.
#203 to #195 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. You might wanna work on your reading skills.
#254 to #144 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
This seems to contradict you. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo
#286 - josieabby
Reply +7
(01/30/2013) [-]
#153 - LocoJoe
Reply +6
(01/30/2013) [-]
Gotta love that feeling when I live in Texas and can shoot any cunt who breaks into my home.
#204 to #153 - itrooztrooperdown
Reply -1
(01/30/2013) [-]
I'd rather love that feeling when you leave your home open at night and nobody wants to break into your house because nobody needs to do so and nobody is a cunt.
#291 to #204 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Is this in the same state where communism is good in practice, nobody wants to pirate music, and court rulings are unaffected by politics?
#157 to #153 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
A life for an object. Typical Texan attitude.
#160 to #157 - LocoJoe
Reply +6
(01/30/2013) [-]
My life or his. I think I'll live.

I prefer killing the ****** instead of letting him live that way my taxes don't pay for his living costs. If some idiot is robbing he's scum anyways, prolly would have breeded some little welfare recipients for himself. You should thank me for not letting these welfare leeches live.
#169 to #160 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Omg I'm laughing so much right now. You're such a toooool.
#164 to #157 - dharkmoswen
Reply -1
(01/30/2013) [-]
I salute you LocalJoe, and it's about more than your belongings, anon. It's the fact that most places you get sued if you shoot someone when they're breaking in and threatening your family. I have seen a case where a known sex offender broke into a single mother's place, she shot his leg IN HER DAUGHTER'S ROOM and still ended up getting sued by the guy and the state. In good ol' Texas, you can shoot someone if it means protecting your family and you don't have to worry about paying the other person for the right to do so.
#218 to #157 - whiteyswag
Reply -5
(01/30/2013) [-]
Comment as anon. Typical faggot attitude.
Comment as anon. Typical faggot attitude.
#178 to #153 - drakenumen
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Gotta love living in Maine and have the same right, or alaska, or california, or colorado, or connecticut, or florida, or georgia, or hawaii, or illinois, or indiana, or iowa, or kansas....
#145 - nucularwar
Reply +6
(01/30/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people,
(angry) People (with guns) kill people.
#158 to #145 - annoyingsmartguy
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
#161 to #158 - nucularwar
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Who was that comedian who said we should just charge a **** ton for bullets? people would think twice if every shot cost 50 bucks
#188 to #161 - krnboy
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
actually he said it was $5,000 but yes, it was chis rock
#174 to #161 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Chris rock I think...
#199 to #158 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Bullets don't kill people. Bullet wounds kill people.
#224 to #199 - nogphille
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
bullet wounds don't kill people; loss of blood, lead poisoning and damaged vital organs kill people.
#265 - churrundo
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
Oh boy here we go
#267 to #265 - paintbucket
Reply +5
(01/30/2013) [-]
Submitted: 23 hours ago

bit late to be saying that.
#273 to #267 - churrundo
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
i don't even care
i don't even care
#275 to #273 - paintbucket
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
ok.
#287 to #267 - theshadowed ONLINE
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Oh boy here we've gone?
#201 - itrooztrooperdown
Reply +5
(01/30/2013) [-]
Americans and their gun-mania, that's always fun.
#159 - skumbaner
Reply +5
(01/30/2013) [-]
People with guns don't kill people.
It is actually the hand which commit the act, so therefore USA should ban hands. Because hands kill people.
#162 to #159 - LocoJoe
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Why don't we just make murder illegal!
#285 to #159 - bacabac
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Thing objects!
#6 - northleech
Reply -6
(01/30/2013) [-]
Considering that the burglar doesnt have a gun either, you can most likely defend yourself with something else.
#177 to #6 - dharkmoswen
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Because criminals follow laws?
#9 to #6 - blackgecko
Reply +5
(01/30/2013) [-]
why would the burglar follow the gun laws if he's breaking into someones house?
#36 to #9 - qtipthegreat
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
If the robber had a gun the guy wouldn't have given two ***** about the threat then.
#10 to #9 - northleech
Reply -5
(01/30/2013) [-]
How did the burglar get his hands on a gun in the first place?
#16 to #10 - misledzach
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
The same way you would get pot. Through a dealer.
#119 to #10 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
you do realise how saturated the united states is with gund right now right? many of them are not owned by who their registered to since many dont worry about changing registration when transferring guns since it isnt necessary. if the government decided to take away guns they would come to me looking for a mossberg 500 sig tactical .22 and semi auto thompson. this doesnt include my henry repeater and berretta 92fs. the first three rifles would never be found because i sold them. now do this for the, oh, milions of guns out there that are exactly the same way.
#323 to #119 - northleech
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
It's pretty sad that it turned out that way in the first place...
#335 to #323 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
it was necessary to an extent. the US needs guns almost. because we are such a large nation calling the cops isnt always the best option. police may be miles away but you need immediate protection. guns are also one of the few things that people think we need to know who owns each one
#336 to #335 - northleech
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
Yeah, but all the guns didn't appear out of thin air. They got made for both the criminals and civilians. If there is an issue with the police not being there when needed, maybe open more police stations? More jobs aswell.
#337 to #336 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
its not that simple. police are paid by the government. almost every state and city government out their is over or close to budget. they dont have room to budge. we also live in a society that glorifies criminals and demonizes the police force. guns are never made to kill innocents. the manufacturer knew that maybe this will end up in the hands of someone bad but their more likely to end up in the hands of someone good willing to stop the bad. also if your concerned about jobs what about all the people employed by the firearm manufacturing and maintaining industry?
#338 to #337 - northleech
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
How did this start? How did the nation start to glorify criminals in the first place? What went so wrong? I honestly have no clue
#340 to #338 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
the media. i think around the 80s 90s is when it got really bad.about the time rodney king and rampart happened. songs like **** the police and other things. half the people i know say thy hate cops with a passion. ask half of them they have no reason ask the other half its because they got caught doing something wrong. the most popular games movies and music are about criminals. then the media sensationalizes thse large scale shootings making kids that feel like they want to be remembered and want to kill people et the idea to go out in ablaze of glory
#292 - awalkingdisaster **User deleted account**
+4
has deleted their comment [-]
#270 - dishie
Reply -2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Guns are the final solution to every problem.
#288 to #270 - renzard
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
And what do you know of final solutions?
#210 - thewalruss
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
OMG how many burglars are there in the US??? Why are you always expecting a robber in your houses?
#214 to #210 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
there's has been 3 break ins in my apartment complex sense last august i would rather have my gun just in case. i don't live in that bad of an area either this **** just happens
#216 to #214 - thewalruss
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
OMG That's terrible... and look at me, I'm mexican. Well... we could have the narcos, but no one breaks into our houses :| I've never seen a gun in my life, just in the movies and in the games.
#219 to #216 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
i don't have a gun gun to shoot some one and i hope i don't have to but with the other breaks ins i worry
#255 to #210 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
it only takes once man
#225 to #210 - paintbucket
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
live in detroit for a few years.
#149 - dickticklerluv
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
However, you can legally shoot someone if they trespass on your property.
However, you can legally shoot someone if they trespass on your property.
#166 to #149 - dharkmoswen
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
As long as they don't sue you.
#192 to #166 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Thats why you shoot to kill, you injure point one at them they sue
#279 to #192 - ccplb
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
Well unfortunately, the family can sue for the loss of a loved one if you kill him. Even if it is his fault and your life was legitimately in danger.
#170 to #166 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
I live in Texas and if some cunt breaks into my house. Im dropping them...

#175 to #170 - dharkmoswen
Reply -1
(01/30/2013) [-]
That's the awesomeness of texas, though. Sadly, the rest of the US sucks on that front.
#182 to #175 - drakenumen
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Maine: Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force

gotta make this point again
#186 to #182 - dharkmoswen
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Nice! I'll have to look more into this. Thanks :D
#183 to #182 - drakenumen
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
and tons of other states
#95 - merrymarvelite
Reply +4
(01/30/2013) [-]
Is anybody really trying to take away handguns from people who own them legally, though?

I thought it was larger assault rifles your government was going after. You know, the ones that nobody has any real reason to own unless you're in an actual war zone.
#99 to #95 - LtMcG
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Or to shoot cool guns
#110 to #95 - Zarke
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Is anybody really trying to take away semi-automatic rifles from people who own them legally, though?
#123 to #110 - jdonaldson
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
Yes they are trying to take them away.
#228 to #95 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Till the liberals say that no one needs a large clip handgun to defend themselves when revolvers are enough to stop an intruder. And semi automatic handguns are often used in school shootings.
#152 to #95 - LocoJoe
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
Want to know my reason for owning one? I want it. I have a right. Bill of Rights man, not the Bill of Needs. You don't NEED a smart phone, you don't NEED new clothes every season, you don't NEED a laptop, you don't NEED a car that goes past 60 MPH.
#155 to #95 - arkfire
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
But that is the point of having the gun in the first place, if the government is oppressive they can rebel against them and take back the country. So how are we suppose to fight them if we have 10 or less bullets per magazine?
#222 to #95 - whiteyswag
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
More pistols kill people each year than assault rifles do....just sayin...
More pistols kill people each year than assault rifles do....just sayin...
#114 to #95 - sketchE
Reply +2
(01/30/2013) [-]
the irony is that assault weapons, a very general term for cosmetic traits, only accaunt for about 2 percent of all gun crime
#96 to #95 - bcsaint [OP]
Reply +3
(01/30/2013) [-]
anything that holds more than 7 rounds