Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#916 - viewtifulbro
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
Can someone explain to me why people have a huge problem about getting a background check for  priors or mental illness before you purchase an assault rifle? I didn't have a problem with it but I would love to hear of those who have an opposing opinion.    
   
Gif somewhat related
Can someone explain to me why people have a huge problem about getting a background check for priors or mental illness before you purchase an assault rifle? I didn't have a problem with it but I would love to hear of those who have an opposing opinion.

Gif somewhat related
#986 to #916 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
1. The whole "assault rifle" thing is a media-created term. Gun owners--even people who own and use those rifles that the media and politicians call "assault rifles"--don't call them that. They're semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. If anything, the rifles the military and police have--which are fully automatic--are the true assault rifles.

2. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right to gun ownership because our Founding Fathers believed in checks and balances, and that an armed public was the best check and defense against the government ever becoming too powerful and tyrannical. And giving government the power to decide who is and isn't able to be a part of that check on their power is like telling a five year-old they can only have as much candy as their babysitter says, but that they get to pick who the babysitter is.

3. Gun ownership in itself is a nonviolent crime, so passing laws regarding it initiates violence against individuals. It says, "Even though you're not harming anyone, you must follow these rules or we're going to fine or imprison you," and that's wrong.
#961 to #916 - oneironeer
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because many are arguing that background checks aren't very effective and that the cost will outweigh the benefits. On another note, many anti-gun activists aren't just going for background checks; they want to ban and prohibit firearms altogether.
#979 to #961 - viewtifulbro
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That seems a bit more harsh than what pebar said. Of course they are always going to be people that are against something. I personally am against having a gun, but I also respect that that is my own personal belief and people don't have to share it.
#920 to #916 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's not the background check part that caused it to fail in the senate; it was the felony charge for loaning a gun to a friend for a day to hang out in the middle of nowhere and go shooting. It created a huge burden on gun owners.

The bill that failed was very poorly written.
#937 to #920 - viewtifulbro
Reply +3
(04/22/2013) [-]
Thanks for the explanation :)
Thanks for the explanation :)
#521 - pedobearsepicness
Reply +9
(04/22/2013) [-]
My dad told me how he stands on gun control laws

"Oh yeah, totally. Maybe we should outlaw cocaine too. that would definitely get it off our streets."
#569 to #521 - Crusader
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That's not what they are doing, they want to put restrictions in place in order to make it harder for people to get.
You can go out and get a gun easily, you can't get coke that easily.
#583 to #569 - durkadurka
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
So it'll be hard for me to get a weapon, but easy enough for the cocaine dealer to get his. There's absolutely no problems there.
#578 to #569 - pedobearsepicness
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah thats true, but i think what he was getting at was the assault weapons ban.
I think what he means is that if we outlaw assault weapons that they'll be like illicit drugs.
#173 - chimeechang
Reply +9
(04/21/2013) [-]
-Implying that children have access to assault rifles
-Implying that it would be easier for a child to choke on an assault rifle
-Implying that...

Ok this is ridiculous..
worst analogical post ever
#185 to #173 - DmOnZ
Reply -3
(04/21/2013) [-]
Well... when you get irresponsible parents leaving firearms lying around the house because they never went through a mandatory firearms handling course, then yes, children do have access to assault rifles.
#276 - pivotmasterdm
Reply +20
(04/21/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Ok here we go.
Kinder eggs are banned cause children would choke on the candies inside. Not saying they should still be banned. But assault rifles don't hurt anyone. The shooter is the one hurting people. Forgive me, as I'm about to reference other arguments without the ability to quote the exact person.
"If guns kill people, spoons make people fat. Cars get in accidents. It is the person holding the gun that kills people. They make the decision to kill the people."
"Saying guns kill people is like picking up a cat and throwing it on someone and then claiming the cat attacked you."
In short, guns shouldn't be banned because it's not the guns fault. It's the decisions of the shooter that put people in harms way.

Rant over.
Go on with your life.
#296 to #276 - garymuthafuknoak ONLINE
Reply -5
(04/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but if you don't have the gun there in the first place it makes it less easier to shoot up your school :D
#298 to #296 - pivotmasterdm
Reply +3
(04/21/2013) [-]
What's stopping them from doing the same thing with bombs? Man will always find another way to kill man.
#308 to #298 - garymuthafuknoak ONLINE
Reply -4
(04/21/2013) [-]
Like I said. Less easier. Pretty sure you would need to go to quite the extent to get a bomb that will actually cause casualties.

Whereas, with a gun, you just need to go in your dad closet.
#432 to #308 - Laddie
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
You can literally walk over to Walmart and get all the supplies you need to make a bomb.
#459 to #432 - garymuthafuknoak ONLINE
Reply -2
(04/22/2013) [-]
so if there is no guns, everyone is going to be blowing each other the **** up?

just like all the other first world countries with strict gun laws right?
#600 to #459 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Violent maniacs who perform mass shootings will. Going back to your original argument, are you seriously going to pretend there are no gangs or terrorists in countries with gun control?
#314 to #308 - pivotmasterdm
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
You're implying that every father owns a gun. You can also make mustard gas out of house hold items that everyone owns, which is easier than guns.
#330 to #314 - garymuthafuknoak ONLINE
Reply -5
(04/21/2013) [-]
It was a figure of speech. I wasn't saying every dad will have a gun I'm just saying it's much easier to acquire a weapon in a society where it's common.

And besides, mustard gas isn't even much of a killer as it is an irritant. When was the last time you heard someone using ******* mustard gas?
#339 to #330 - pivotmasterdm
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
My point is that there are easier things to aquire than guns, such as knives, bombs or chemical agents.
#788 to #330 - deadrifler
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
"Mustard gas is a minor irritant"

Yes, a chemical weapon banned under the CWC that is an extremely powerful mutagenic is only a minor bother. You just went from trying to defend your position to full-retard.

Just because a weapon does not kill(Mustard gas was only lethal in about 1% of cases) does not mean it is only "irritating". It was commonly used as an area denial and it could linger for days in one location. Granted, previous poster who mentioned mustard gas probably did not know this.

I would rather be exposed to mustard gas than phosgene though, because at least then you would know you were exposed. Phosgene smells much like fresh cut grass or hay, so you would probably not even realize exposure until already displaying symptoms.
#557 to #308 - bothemastaofall
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
>"less easier"
What's the word for that again?
#556 to #298 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That takes us to our next lesson: "Education"
#356 to #296 - stigman **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
That makes no difference though. If there were no guns for the mad men to use, then what's stopping them from just using a stick to kill kids.
#429 to #356 - benvinnyandmia
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
But if you go to a school with a stick then you won't kill 20 kids.



No, I don't think all guns should be banned, but I do think there should be restrictions on them.
#587 to #429 - revanthewin
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
If you go to a school with a bomb, though...
#1301 to #429 - stigman **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
depends what kind of stick he has.
#444 to #276 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's a shame how blinded you guys are to guns. Just look at your own gangs. Why do you have troubles with them? Because guns can easily be acquired and they can shoot you right back.
#519 to #444 - brisineo ONLINE
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
Using gang violence as an argument is pretty invalid mostly because gangs majorly get their weapons through illegal means, therefore making any gun control invalid. Not to mention a few of them have military-grade, fully automatic weaponry, which is completely UNAVAILABLE to obtain legally for any average citizen.

Not to mention, if gun control is strictly enforced like the probation amendment did on alcohol, America is in a unique position because the black market and smuggling jobs would boom and illegally obtained guns would be everywhere.
#922 to #519 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That's funny, because that's not the case in any other western civilized country where you have gun control. But I guess it's because it's just America, after all you had to ban kinder-eggs because you ate it's ******* content.
#935 to #922 - brisineo ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
There is a very distinct difference that America has and Europe doesn't, and that's a major organized crime-run black market and trade route.

No matter what, as long as there is an illegal substance in demand, there will be people who smuggle it here, because we're conveniently placed next to places where guns and drugs are made and sold like candy, and have international access to distribute.

Also, while gang violence is a problem, it's a statistical fact that it occurs a lot more in areas with stricter gun control, such as in LA and Chicago, while in Texas, where everyone is armed, there's practically none in comparison, even though it's on the border with Mexico. Here's a picture with a bunch more facts to read up on.

PS. The Kinder Eggs have been unbanned since March. The controversy was because of a bunch of sue-happy soccer moms who didn't know the heimlich.
#1030 to #935 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
I was done writing a reply for you, but my PC turned itself off. So instead of the long post that got deleted, I'll just write you a little recap :P

I'm sure there's a big black market in the US, but I am also confident that the creation of stricter gun laws would make it harder to illegally smuggle in arms, and illegally sell them.

Gang violence may be a problem, but I think connection this to guns among the civilians is a bit far fetched. Yes, it is a statistical fact, but if you look more closely into it, there's probably a bigger connection between population density and gang violence than between guns per capita and gang violence. I think that even wealth and unemployment could check in before guns per capita. I do not know, I just think it sounds reasonable.

I'm sure you're right about the Kinder eggs, but I have to laugh. USA is the only country who could ban Kinder eggs because it's dangerous to eat for children in the first place.
#539 to #276 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
When anybody with any mentality (and or mental illness, life issues etc) can easily get a hold of a legal gun to do what he pleases with it, means your law system is pretty poorly designed. But since america has a strong economy based on gun production and sells i doubt we will see any changes any time soon. It is less probable to have gun related deaths somewhere where guns aren't handed out to everybody. So now is America really interested in it's population's safety?
#589 to #539 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Gun deaths will just be replaced if not surpassed by violent deaths in general (knives, for example).
#624 to #589 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
it's far easier to pull the trigger of an automated fire arm and kill a dozen people, then stab them or violently kill them.
#789 to #624 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
guess what ******* retard, they used semi automatic guns, not full auto there is a ******* difference, and guess what else ppl in the military dont even go full automatic, it is less accurate. now before you go and bitch about it, yea i know they have 50 cals but that is not what was used or has been ever used here on us soil to kill innocent civilians
#928 to #276 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That's the stupidest comment I've read in years. "Guns don't kill people, people do". It's obvious that if there's a school massacre, and the person responsible has a better, more dangerous weapon he's more likely to kill more people. If you ban automatic weapons, he wouldn't be able to shoot that many people.

However, do as you please - I'm just glad I don't live in a country where some people are so ******* dumb they have to ban kinder-eggs to protect their safety.
#860 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
this is the **** that happens when you vote for democrats......
#875 to #860 - majortomcomics
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
Truth.
#809 - vivapinatapro
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
This ad implies so much ********. And I kind of want to be upset about it, but I honestly just cant muster the ***** to give at this point.
This ad implies so much ********. And I kind of want to be upset about it, but I honestly just cant muster the ***** to give at this point.
#783 - slimscheibe ONLINE
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
**** THIS POST YOU DEMOCRATIC ANTI PUSSY FAGGOT
#662 - atkissonbr
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
#652 - marooned
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because, assault weapons AREN'T FOR ******* KIDS.
#656 to #652 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Assault weapons is not a factual classification of firearms. It is a catch catch phrase term used by gun grabbers as a blanket term for guns that they want banned, many of which share NO functional or mechanical similarities.
#672 to #656 - hoodyninja
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
THANK YOU
#658 to #656 - marooned
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Weapons aren't for kids*
#665 to #658 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, I disagree. A kid behind the wheel supervised in a close course is no less dangerous then a kid with a firearm on a closed range with a trained range master. They will never learn to respect the car OR the firearm unless you teach them about it.
#693 to #665 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Someones upset, What's the matter don't like facts so you need to thumb down?
#644 - brisineo ONLINE
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
Here's a little thing to think about...   
   
ALL "mass shootings" (where the assailant was carrying a firearm of some sort, with a total of 4+ civilian casualties as a result) since 1950 were in labeled Gun Free Zones.  (Meaning that it is illegal for a civilian to carry a firearm into that zone, licensed or not)   
   
There have been several more attempts at mass shootings that fail to be recorded in the statistics that gun control advocates use, because they tried shooting up a place where their targets could shoot back.   
   
Also, I'd just want you to take note, the last time we tried to ban something that was a pretty large part of society, (ie the Prohibition amendment) the black market boomed and everyone was buying it illegally to the point where we had to stop because it only made things worse.  America, unfortunately, is in the unique position in being a black market central hub, where banning something as a whole (even something small such as high capacity magazines) is entirely ineffective, and the only true way proven to counter this is literally putting it at gunpoint of people who buy guns to defend themselves.
Here's a little thing to think about...

ALL "mass shootings" (where the assailant was carrying a firearm of some sort, with a total of 4+ civilian casualties as a result) since 1950 were in labeled Gun Free Zones. (Meaning that it is illegal for a civilian to carry a firearm into that zone, licensed or not)

There have been several more attempts at mass shootings that fail to be recorded in the statistics that gun control advocates use, because they tried shooting up a place where their targets could shoot back.

Also, I'd just want you to take note, the last time we tried to ban something that was a pretty large part of society, (ie the Prohibition amendment) the black market boomed and everyone was buying it illegally to the point where we had to stop because it only made things worse. America, unfortunately, is in the unique position in being a black market central hub, where banning something as a whole (even something small such as high capacity magazines) is entirely ineffective, and the only true way proven to counter this is literally putting it at gunpoint of people who buy guns to defend themselves.
#657 to #644 - secretdestroyers
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Every law gets broken at at some point so, by your own logic, why bother having laws at all?

Law enforcement exists for a reason....not all cops screw people over.
#686 to #657 - brisineo ONLINE
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'd rather have armed citizens to prevent an attack than to rely on police to stop the shooter after he's killed several people.

But I'm not saying all laws are hindrances. Law maintains order and productivity in society, and of course, a criminal disrupts that because laws are irrelevant to them. We stopped the prohibition act because we couldn't know where the alcohol was going and who was making/owning it, and that was a severe risk.

All I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be outrageously difficult for a legal citizen to obtain a higher capacity weapon when outlaws can get them with ease or simply steal it from a legal citizen. It provides a distinct disadvantage, and more casualties would be the result. (Refer to post #649)
#696 to #657 - ponyfcker
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
>not all cops screw people over

You're true on some occasions. My friend was caught smoking weed, this is in Idaho so the cops are strict about that, and the cop give him a lecture on drug abuse and how it can ruin your life, then he asked for a joint and dropped him off at his house telling him to stay in school and get his work done, then have time for weed.
#654 to #644 - superblargh
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
I didn't even read the comment; your gif was just awesome.
I didn't even read the comment; your gif was just awesome.
#530 - pootington
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
Hoboy..
#480 - wernstrom
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
**wernstrom rolled a random comment #4135824 posted by trollins at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. ** :
 < relevant
**wernstrom rolled a random comment #4135824 posted by trollins at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. ** :
< relevant
#479 - ritzrules
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
it's a bad idea to ban either one.

kindersurprise is delicious and wonderful, AR-15's make excellent home defense weapons.

and teaching kids how to handle firearms SAFELY is a very practical skill and teaches them a lot about responsibility outside of the realm of guns, too.

sillies...
#492 to #479 - omfgitsstsix
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
*Fixed

AR-15 is delicious and wonderful, KinderSurprises make excellent home defense weapons.
#504 to #492 - ritzrules
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
****. why am i giggling.
#474 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well... I've personally witnessed a child choking on the toy insider a kinder egg. And I have NEVER seen a child choking on an assault rifle.

Clearly, those chocolate bastards are more dangerous
#482 to #474 - freenarative
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
And if that child was retarded enough to put a ******* toy down its own throat then maybe that was natural selection in action. survival of the smarter? OR maybe the children who don't choke are the ones who have smarter parents; you know, the parents who read the warning on the wrapper that says " do not give to children under 3" and "do not leave children unsupervised with toy."
Or better yet maybe the children who survive don't have dumb ass american parents who fail to teach their children "don't try and inhale the small toy child, IT MIGHT ******* KILL YOU!"
#471 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
You can buy a kinder egg at any age.



You can't buy a gun at any age.
#442 - hypnotoad stare
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
I didn't know that guns killed people. Because they don't, people kill people. Background checks, I agree with, banning assault weapons? No, and comparing chocolate to a gun totally is the most similar thing ever!
#411 - esquaredsixteen
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
I mean, I feel a lot safer knowing Chinese kids are banned from the U.S.
#438 to #411 - electro
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
HAH
#374 - givemethesalt
Reply +4
(04/21/2013) [-]
Assault weapons... what a stupid term. Weapons that are semi-automatic, but resemble military assault rifles. Might as well buy a pistol or any other rifle that doesn't have military look.
#237 - akatsukipain
Reply +4
(04/21/2013) [-]
shes gonna need that when zombies come......
#226 - rattymanbryden
Reply +4
(04/21/2013) [-]
How about we teach kids to be safe with guns and food? To start she needs to take her finger off the ******* trigger and learn how to handle a weapon properly.