Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#963 - fingapopyabuttho
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because toddlers can buy assault rifles in the candy isle.
#943 - zombiefied
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
le gun posts
#854 - newsmyrna
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
#841 - shittypants
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
Dat trigger discipline
#602 - holywarstpd
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because its pretty ******* difficult to choke on an AR-15.
#607 to #602 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's also difficult to choke on a kinder surprise, if you aren't retarded.
#425 - mrblueftw
Reply +7
(04/22/2013) [-]
Instead of banning kinder eggs how bout you teach your little ***** to eat the edible part.
#1188 - Zentria
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
How often do kids choke on guns?
How often do kids choke on guns?
#1248 to #1188 - neokun ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
More aimed at GETTING SHOT THE **** UP rather than choking on it...
#1192 to #1188 - HeartOfTheDL
Reply +3
(04/22/2013) [-]
Everyday.
#851 - landerp
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
guy shoots up an elementary school, blame the guns.
guy blows up the boston marathon, blame the guy.
guns are to blame for violence the same way spoons are to blame for fat people
or in this case, kinder chocolate eggs.
#828 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Um yeah Assault Rifles should be BANNED in USA --- FOR CITIZENS that is.

Only police and Military need such weapons.

Not goddamn civilians...Unless of course, USA gets invaded and Civies have to literally defend their homes against similar caliber weaponry....

I mean...jesus.....

There's a reason civilians don't openly own tactical nukes, bombs, or cannons.
#844 to #828 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
So you're saying the plot from "Red Dawn" is not realistic? ;)
#846 to #828 - ShadeElement
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
People who are opposed to civilian AR's don't know **** about AR's.

It is already illegal for civilians to own an automatic weapon.
There are already legal limits to how much ammunition a single magazine can hold.
I can cycle my Marlin '94 or my Remington 870 about as fast as you can pull the trigger on a semi-auto. Both of which fire a much more devastating round than an AR.

So go ahead, ban Assault Rifles. Hell, lets just magically make them all disappear.
The next mass shooter will just use a home defense shotgun and some hand made pipe bombs. That kind of carnage in a crowded urban environment will leave you longing for the days they used a Bushmaster .223.
#856 to #846 - landerp
Reply +3
(04/22/2013) [-]
#834 to #828 - pebar
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
if civilians don't need them, police don't need them either
#843 to #834 - jujuface
Reply -4
(04/22/2013) [-]
The only reason the police here have them is to protect us against the citizens who have them. Logic right? It's crazy
#847 to #843 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
'cept police aren't legally obligated to protect people so why should people trust them to?
#873 to #847 - jujuface
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Also if you don't still don't accept that your statement contains a fallacy, then consider this: You can protect your own damn self just fine with a pistol, or a shotgun.
#864 to #847 - jujuface
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
If legal obligation means anything to you, then people aren't legally obligated to hurt you either, inf fact they're legally obligated not to do so. So you've got nothing to worry about :)
#870 to #864 - pebar
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
it's not their job to protect people
#877 to #870 - jujuface
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Their job is to uphold the law. Guess whats against the law? Murder/Assault.
#886 to #877 - pebar
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayarch&ar ticleid=341&issue_id=72004
#950 to #886 - jujuface
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
>implies police have to monitor anyone with a restraining order 24/7
>Warren v. Columbia...I see your point. Doesn't support the legality of assault rifles but I do see how one could argue the need for self defense with a weapon
#820 - kashin
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
You're all focusing on the wrong thing here. The point is that Kinder eggs are delicious.
#797 - pebar
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
Dumbass kid has her finger on the trigger. These anti gun people preach about protecting kids but they ignore basic gun safety.
Dumbass kid has her finger on the trigger. These anti gun people preach about protecting kids but they ignore basic gun safety.
#821 to #797 - SrslyWtf
Reply -4
(04/22/2013) [-]
Your point was stupid... But the gif deserved a thumb.
#815 to #797 - bronybox
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's probably not a real rifle anyway.
#918 to #797 - teoberry
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Pic ************* related
#792 - queefhaterz
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
Whenever the term "assault weapon" is used to define guns
#988 to #792 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
True dat. Assault is an action, not a weapon.
#738 - mahnamesjakers
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
If there is one thing I can't stand, it's when people compare apples to oranges like this. It's not like they banned those eggs because someone could ******* commit a mass murder with one of them, nor could a child even legally obtain a gun under our current laws. God dammit seeing promotions like these really shows how terrible their arguments are.
#741 to #738 - bladebites
Reply +4
(04/22/2013) [-]
Oh my god, THANK YOU.
#603 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
********.
A: The people who made this banned Kinder Eggs. They're basically saying 'We banned this, why not ban this as well?'
B: A child couldn't even bring an assault rifle to school any way.
#457 - clickythepirate
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
There's a very simple answer to this, that's because children can buy chocolate. It's not like every nine year old is walking in to the local grocery store and taking a M-16 off the shelf like it's a damn toy. Also the candy was banned because kids were eating them without looking inside and choking to death on the toy and hard candies on the inside.
#325 - fishtacos
Reply +6
(04/21/2013) [-]
A warning to those who dare scroll into the comments section
#358 to #325 - CaptainCanada
Reply +3
(04/21/2013) [-]
********* thread?
#369 to #358 - fishtacos
Reply +2
(04/21/2013) [-]
********* thread.
#264 - roliga
Reply +6
(04/21/2013) [-]
HERE WE GO

Both things are perfectly fine for civilian ownership as long as people aren't ******* retards!

Don't put your child on a ******* Kinder Egg only diet

Don't leave your gun safe unlocked. Don't have a safe? **** you no safe fag go get a safe.

#279 to #264 - IamTROGDOR
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
Kids were choking on the toys like retards, that's why they banned it.
#351 - zukowashere
Reply +5
(04/21/2013) [-]
A Kinder egg will never save my life, a gun would.
#357 to #351 - defeats
Reply -7
(04/21/2013) [-]
Having a gun is more likely to get you killed than save your life.
#363 to #357 - bitchitroll
Reply +2
(04/21/2013) [-]
attempting to use an illegal firearm to harm another person is more likely to get you killed*


you had a few misspellings
#379 to #357 - defeats
Reply -1
(04/21/2013) [-]
#270 - lightninghedgehog
Reply +5
(04/21/2013) [-]
dat trigger discipline.....
#215 - YoursTruley
Reply +4
(04/21/2013) [-]
M4....not...not legal in the first place....i dont know what they are trying to get at....all assault rifles have been banned...i dont......wtf?

also...people can kill with bombs too...as we have seen...problem isn't guns...it's people

dontdotdot
#246 to #215 - catsareforcancer
Reply -1
(04/21/2013) [-]
"M4"

...

Son, that there is an AR15. Albeit, one of the fully-automatic variety. I also heard that the gun legislations never passed so please point me to the source where assault rifles have been banned.
#281 to #246 - YoursTruley
Reply +2
(04/21/2013) [-]
i do think that is still an m-4 judging by her size and how big it is compared to her, m4s, as you know are smaller, and not banned i guess but:

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.


and seeing how an assult rifle is defined b being able to be full-auto, the above applies. (yes the 19994 ban did expire but the other did not)
#313 to #281 - catsareforcancer
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
One could also argue semantics, though, what is the legal definition of a "machine gun" and "assault rifle." I did hear from somewhere that the term assault rifle was simply some arbitrary term used by people looking to ban the same type of weapons the average american can buy today.

When I hear of a "machine gun" I think of a crew-served weapon. To make this clear, I'm in no way against you, just trying to get that part out of the way before it comes up.
#337 to #313 - YoursTruley
Reply +2
(04/21/2013) [-]
no i understand, but the legal definition from the encyclopedia of Britannica is in short
"An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

the thing is, is people dont understand the differences between assault rifles and rifles that are modified to look as such.

banning them will do nothing because they are basically already super hard to get.
it is honestly like no lawmaker or lawyers have done their homework.

#416 to #281 - dildzmiester
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Not quite sure but ya it does look more like a carbine than a rifle, could be an M4
#230 to #215 - savirleo
Reply +5
(04/21/2013) [-]
Didn't you hear? A sniper rifle killed some people with the help of a white van and a human
#232 to #230 - YoursTruley
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
ha!
#239 to #232 - savirleo
Reply +5
(04/21/2013) [-]
Trust me, I'm a journalist