Logic does not apply to.... Funny Junk.. Are you ? Take the following test to find out. QUESTION if sameone attempted to inflict pain, and possibly death upon t
x
Click to expand

Logic does not apply to...

Are you ? Take the following test to find out.
QUESTION
if sameone attempted to inflict pain, and possibly death upon
the person yeu bye the most, would you be willing to use a
gun to save your hired one?
SELECT YOUR ANSWER
A) Yes
KEY
if you answered A:
You are not .
If you answered B:
Unfortunately for yew gwed me, you are truly .
If you answered A, but still claim to be antigen: 2 A E
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2172
Views: 57421
Favorited: 88
Submitted: 09/07/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites submit to reddit

Comments(775):

[ 775 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#664 - rambearclaw (09/07/2012) [-]
Guns are good, did you know Jesus and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans?
User avatar #552 - xxKingKhanxx (09/07/2012) [-]
It would be cool if there were no guns at all and we just solved our problems with martial arts.
User avatar #569 to #552 - fooljamable (09/07/2012) [-]
now there's a world where i would lose a lot of arguements
#493 - mrsecret (09/07/2012) [-]
i would just use my bear hands
+10
#523 to #493 - bloodyfox **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#170 - Spikeydeath (09/07/2012) [-]
i chose c.
use 2 guns
User avatar #115 - ballsofpenis (09/07/2012) [-]
Im anti-guns for one reason and one reason only.
I want to see people fight with swords and melee weapons instead of guns :D
#389 - stromming (09/07/2012) [-]
What.

"Are you anti-rape?"

"Yes.."

"So you wouldn't rape a perfect 10/10 woman to save 10 million lives?"

"Of course I would"

"THEN YOU ARE NOT ANTI RAPE!!!!"

This faulty logic could be used for about any situation. Pic unrelated but awesome
#462 to #389 - snaikravdra (09/07/2012) [-]
But, what is 10 million lives versus one? i think the logic is slightly more legitimate than you think sir, however, i see your point.
But, what is 10 million lives versus one? i think the logic is slightly more legitimate than you think sir, however, i see your point.
#129 - iFail (09/07/2012) [-]
If nobody had guns, the world would be a much better place. I can understand that many gun owners use them for sport or protection, but those who misuse them are generally ******** that only use so that they can pretend they're strong.
Most people who shoot somebody else out of anything other than protection, are too scared to actually put up a fight.
I'll use a real life example, last summer I was playing basketball with my friend in the court outside the school and then these guys come up just trying to cause trouble. I didn't have a gun, but before you know it I got in a fight, and yeah, I might have got beaten up, but it's not all bad. Because now I live with my uncle and auntie in Bel-Air
#556 to #129 - frink (09/07/2012) [-]
Was going to thumb you down, but I read it till the end and I realized what you did there.
#671 to #129 - Rascal (09/08/2012) [-]
the thing i think about is this:
humans are creatures who want power over other humans. Say guns didn't exist, then we would create something worse. for example, in the Medieval era they started with swords, then the catapults, swords soon became weaker as people like pirates had guns that shot glass shards and other objects.

Basically, get rid of guns and we'll most likely create somethin gmore powerful to kill each other.
User avatar #217 to #129 - lilnuggetbob (09/07/2012) [-]
go to Britain and get yourself mugged with no way to defend yourself now have fun! Every person on this planet isn't all "i love you and i never want to hurt you!" no, people are assholes, and sometimes you need to defend yourself against these assholes, and that's why you might need a gun sometimes, i know people will abuse it, but it will do more good than harm.
User avatar #547 to #217 - lazypaul (09/07/2012) [-]
Go to Britain and almost no-one will have a gun to pull on you.
#633 to #217 - Rascal (09/07/2012) [-]
You think somebody trying to mug you is worthy of being killed? Guns clearly don't do more good than harm because at the end of the day more people are getting killed. No guns= less deaths for public...
-1
#297 to #217 - iFail has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #258 to #129 - thedarkhavok (09/07/2012) [-]
'If nobody had guns, the world would be a much better place' That statement is revoltingly obvious, the fact is it would be impossible to impose new gun laws in America due to the currently present guns.
User avatar #26 - jimmycrank (09/07/2012) [-]
a street gang attempts a drive-by shooting unfortunately your child is accidently hit in the cross-fire...would you

A) Rather they didn't have guns at all?

or

B) avenge your child's death using your own gun?



If you picked A) you're anti-gun.. if you picked B) you might be a psycho, if you picked a) and you're still pro-gun then well.....you're a ******* retard....


That Logic works both ways
#732 to #26 - shroomftw (09/08/2012) [-]
or c) only sell guns to white people
User avatar #46 to #26 - sketchE ONLINE (09/07/2012) [-]
excepy mos drive buys use automatic weapon which inless it was made before the 1950s is illegal to have
User avatar #35 to #26 - profarnsworth (09/07/2012) [-]
How does B make me a psycho? If anything it would make me feel like mother ******* clint eastwood.
#619 to #26 - soopafreak (09/07/2012) [-]
so you're a possible psycho for wanting to avenge your child's needless death?
User avatar #29 to #26 - malific (09/07/2012) [-]
Actually no. Because you're making the assumption that being anti-gun would mean those gangbangers didn't have theirs.

Guns laws are not followed by lawless people. Banning guns simply means thr criminals are thr only ones who have them.
User avatar #156 to #29 - Faz (09/07/2012) [-]
In England its very very hard to get a gun, common street criminals don't have guns the only ones with guns are the biggest drug dealers/weed growers and you wont find any of them using their gun on random people in the street.
User avatar #361 to #156 - thepyras (09/07/2012) [-]
England is an island the size of Michigan with cops everywhere.
User avatar #267 to #156 - HARDSTYLESHUFFLER (09/07/2012) [-]
It's mainly stabbings in the place of shootings, right?
User avatar #497 to #267 - Faz (09/07/2012) [-]
Yeah but its kinda rare even in bad areas like mine, i only know of like 2 people who have been stabbed and killed in my area throughout my entire life.
User avatar #282 to #156 - dickynix (09/07/2012) [-]
England also doesn't have Mexico bordering it
User avatar #324 to #282 - failtolawl (09/07/2012) [-]
second generation Mexicans are the ones gang banging, the ones that are raised in american schools, don't blame mexico for our problems.
User avatar #335 to #324 - dickynix (09/07/2012) [-]
I'm saying many guns come through Mexico into the US just like drugs do not Mexicans in The US but Mexican arms dealers sell a lot of weapons to gangs in the US.
User avatar #220 to #29 - jinjo (09/07/2012) [-]
Watch Bowling for Collumbine.

Obviously Michael Moore is well.. Michael Moore, but there are many extremely vlid points made in the film.
User avatar #725 to #220 - newfalcon (09/08/2012) [-]
Michael Moore wasn't saying the guns were the problem, he was talking about how we a violent culture, mostly due to media.
User avatar #31 to #29 - enuo (09/07/2012) [-]
EXACTLY! Anti gun people are retarded. I mean genuinely medically retarded. Because they live in their own imaginary bubble where laws are always obeyed by the criminally minded. If you are willing to break the law by killing someone with a legally owned gun you are not going to say 'oh guns are now illegal, well can't do it with a gun now. I'm happy killing, but illegal ownership of a gun??? Too far man, too far...'.
#38 to #31 - Rascal (09/07/2012) [-]
a normal, lawlfull person freaks out and shoots his wife because of cheating on him...would you

A)Rather he didn't have a gun at all?

or

B)Rather his wife also would have a gun and they start a ******* shoot-out

#74 to #38 - captnpl (09/07/2012) [-]
The person is the problem, not the method. If he was willing to kill his wife, he didn't need a gun. He could have beaten her, strangled her, pushed her down the stairs, run her down with his car, stabbed her, set the house on fire while she sleeps, put thumbtacks in her fruit loops, or any number of other things cheaper and easier than using a gun.
#113 to #29 - Viggiator ONLINE (09/07/2012) [-]
But that is wrong. USA is the country where it is easiest to get a gun, and at the same time the country with most people killed by guns. I see what you're getting at, but it's just not how it works in real life. Guns should be illegal.
But that is wrong. USA is the country where it is easiest to get a gun, and at the same time the country with most people killed by guns. I see what you're getting at, but it's just not how it works in real life. Guns should be illegal.
User avatar #286 to #113 - dickynix (09/07/2012) [-]
I could easily list 5 countries it is easier to get a gun so I will
Brazil
Mexico
Iraq
Afghanistan
Russia
User avatar #196 to #113 - newfalcon (09/07/2012) [-]
Canada has more guns per person than USA and yet their gun related death rate is lower. Guns don't kill people any more than knifes or hammers. only people can kill people.
User avatar #223 to #196 - jinjo (09/07/2012) [-]
Hunters are accountable for like 80 + percent of that, not just people with semi-automatic weapons in their nightstand etc.
User avatar #261 to #223 - megustaculo (09/07/2012) [-]
Hunters aren't accountable for 80+ of weapons. It's the farmers that carry the most guns, usually for pest control (i.e. coyotes, gophers, pigeons, badgers etc). But ya I do somewhat agree since the farmers are also usually hunters in the fall/winter.
User avatar #266 to #261 - jinjo (09/07/2012) [-]
I was just trying to say that most guns aren't handguns and such that regular people just have for no real reason, it's mostly hunting rifles/shotguns.

#272 to #196 - xlooooolx (09/07/2012) [-]
False

USA has approximately 3 times more guns per capita than Canada
-2
#363 to #196 - greasychesticles has deleted their comment [-]
#557 to #29 - xuberpwnagex (09/07/2012) [-]
But with gun laws, they could carry those guns very easily. If they got pulled arrested for another illegal thing they were doing, and there were anti gun laws, they would get put away for much longer.
User avatar #1 - machinaeprime (09/07/2012) [-]
I think that there is a difference between certain people's definitions of "anti-gun" and just not wanting guns all over the streets.
+1
#2 to #1 - narwhalsnballs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #33 to #2 - profarnsworth (09/07/2012) [-]
Pick them up
#7 to #2 - jakeattack (09/07/2012) [-]
i know! we can just give the cartels tons of guns with gps devices that totally are not obvious at all and totally have infinite battery life hurrr durr.........fast and furious as they called it
#6 to #2 - Rascal (09/07/2012) [-]
Tighten regulations on who gets guns, make sure terrorists cant use the gun show loophole to get guns without a liscense, possibly make automatic rifles illegal. Some things are just ridiculous and cause problems more often than they solve. PLUS mentally insane people shouldn't have guns to start with...
User avatar #19 to #6 - blargtastic (09/07/2012) [-]
Non-military cannot legally own automatic rifles, and it's not hard to modify a semi-automatic rifle to a full-auto rifle. Well, there are varying degrees of difficulty per gun, but you get my point, plus tell me more about how criminals follow these laws.
User avatar #44 to #19 - demolitigationist (09/07/2012) [-]
Except that's wrong. In my state you can own an automatic weapon if you do the right paperwork and shell out ~$16,000.
User avatar #97 to #44 - blargtastic (09/07/2012) [-]
Then I stand corrected.
0
#8 to #6 - narwhalsnballs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#3 to #2 - Rascal (09/07/2012) [-]
cut mexico off of the continent and shove it into the ocean and then install a giant magnet in North America to get guns already here. It is the only way.
+1
#4 to #3 - narwhalsnballs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#189 - shutes (09/07/2012) [-]
American was founded by men who wanted their damn guns.
American was founded by men who wanted their damn guns.
#249 to #189 - comradewinter (09/07/2012) [-]
The US was also founded by men who thought having black slaves was alright, even if the constitution prohibited it. We can't really rely on people who lived 200 years ago in some matters. Back in those days, if you brought a gun to some place to start a massacre, there wasn't many you could hit before the spree ended. Reloading those rifles took ages. Now you can just buy a high caliber semi-automatic pistol legally and take down atleast a dozen before it's over. Also, it's easier to conceal a handgun today inside your pocket, while pistols back in the 1800's were much bigger and obvious. Even if you can pull a gun on someone robbing you with a knife, he can also level with you and use one himself.
#563 to #249 - frink (09/07/2012) [-]
Actually the constitution didn't prohibit slavery until about 70 years after it was created. Didn't you learn anything in school? Do you even know what the Civil War was about? Do you know what the 13th Amendment did?
#577 to #563 - comradewinter (09/07/2012) [-]
Well, I'm sorry. The curriculum in Norway doesn't cover American history so well. All we learn is how America was founded and how Martin Luther King and his followers abolished the discrimination based on that part of the constitution.

And yes, I know what the Civil War was about.
User avatar #639 to #577 - JuliusC (09/07/2012) [-]
maybe you should study up on matters before blindly charging in with ignorance and making a fool of yourself. Many of the founders were against slavery and at that point it was a hot button issue, many of them did infact own slaves, however many of them set them all free within their lifetimes. Also at that point in history, much of the economy was based in agriculture from slave labor, and cutting half of your economy while struggling to fight a war against an empire was probably not a good idea.
#754 to #639 - comradewinter (09/08/2012) [-]
I see your point, but my main argument wasn't about the slaves, it was how guns were far less effective back then than they are now. Being on horseback with a sword wasn't ridiculous back then. In fact, it proved quite effective. With that in mind, guns weren't weapons that gave you the ultimate advantage of every situation, but rather a small edge. 2 out of 3 murders in the US commited by using firearms are done on impulse, which is why they have a 15 day waiting time for purchasing handguns, so people won't do anything rash. Having a gun in your drawer and being pissed at someone is not a good combination, and it has corrupted the minds of many.
#40 - lujan (09/07/2012) [-]
This image has expired
while I don't necessarily think this post is logical, I am not anti-gun.
here's the average anti-gun protester
#57 to #40 - Rascal (09/07/2012) [-]
Alcohol is legal, you can get it very easily pretty much everywhere.
Pot is illegal, you can get it but its expensive and harder to get.

Banning it wont remove all guns, but will reduce the availability.
#59 to #57 - lujan (09/07/2012) [-]
I'm 20 years old, not legally old enough to buy alcohol in the US, and I can get pot easier than alcohol for less money easily. Maybe it's just where I live. But "reduc[ing] the availability" is not possible. If you take guns out of our country then the illegal imports from other countries will just increase. There's no way around stopping anyone who wants to own a gun from obtaining one. It's a reality that has to be faced.
#69 to #59 - Rascal (09/07/2012) [-]
This is exactly why I think they should either lower the alcohol age limit, or legalize pot. whynotboth.jpg

On topic tho. I'm fully aware that if a person want to buy a gun, they can. But when it has to be smuggled, price will increase, and quality will mostly drop. Police would also be able to get rid of guns if they catch people with them (I know this will be a small percentage, but its will happen)
#164 - notsixroller (09/07/2012) [-]
This says nothing about non-lethal action or water pistols...
User avatar #123 - CMSTF (09/07/2012) [-]
I choose B.

And then proceed to use a sword.
#303 - callmemrdillan (09/07/2012) [-]
A. No question, if my someone ever hurt my Mom or Dad, I wouldn't think twice.
A. No question, if my someone ever hurt my Mom or Dad, I wouldn't think twice.
+6
#304 to #303 - narwhalsnballs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #314 to #304 - thegirlyoudespise (09/07/2012) [-]
your daughter is going to have a fun dating life
User avatar #208 - nerdrugger (09/07/2012) [-]
im not anti gun.

im anti stupidity with guns
#406 - loulougia (09/07/2012) [-]
Let's be simpler...   
In Europe, we don't grow with guns, and they are less gun kills.   
Simple correlation:   
If people can get guns easier, criminals can too.   
   
Furthermore, if someone REALLY wanted someone dead, he would now how to, and the revolver  you barely know how to use won't be useful...
Let's be simpler...
In Europe, we don't grow with guns, and they are less gun kills.
Simple correlation:
If people can get guns easier, criminals can too.

Furthermore, if someone REALLY wanted someone dead, he would now how to, and the revolver you barely know how to use won't be useful...
User avatar #454 to #406 - badsamaritan (09/07/2012) [-]
Europe has the highest murder rate by a sharp object. Any how in the US the States with the most Murders by guns are the states with very strict gun control laws
User avatar #713 to #454 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
The laws were made stricter because of the murders, the murders aren't plentiful because of the laws, were you kidding or are you really that stupid?
User avatar #426 to #406 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/07/2012) [-]
Most people that buy guns actually know how to use them, or have been shooting once or twice.

Enjoy getting stabbed and raped over there in Europe, while I shoot anyone who tries.
#414 to #406 - dedaluminus (09/07/2012) [-]
If someone tries to hurt me or my family, the (not revolver) pistol that I am a crack shot with, and know inside and out, will put them 6 feet under with minimal effort. During the day, it's in my pocket or in the holster in my car, and at night it's on my nightstand. So yes, my gun is an effective self defense tool.
User avatar #430 to #414 - basicargentinian (09/07/2012) [-]
consider the following.

Your son gets bullied at school. ALL. THE. TIME. he get's fed up, he gets your gun. School shooting.

consider the following.

A criminal breaks into your car while you're not there, he steals your gun. Now you have a criminal with a gun registered to your name.

consider the following.

A junky aims a gun to your wife, you pull out, he's a junky, he pulls the trigger, now your wife is dead and you might go to jail for empting the entire mag in the junkies face.
#448 to #430 - dedaluminus (09/07/2012) [-]
I will raise my children to stand up for themselves in a physical manner, like I did. Bullying me led to quite a few bloody noses and one broken bone for the people who tried it.   
   
I don't leave my gun in the car when I'm not driving it. I carry it with me at all times, except when entering government buildings. But if it did get stolen, I would report it right away. I know the serial number, and I have a backup piece in case it does get stolen or broken.   
   
The day I can't outdraw a junkie is the day I give up professional shooting, but say a junkie does kill my wife; in the state I live in, defense of married partner or child counts exactly the same as self defense. If the junkie was in my house at the time, there's no deliberation; castle law.  Or make my day law, depending on what it's called in your area; but where I live, if someone breaks into your house you can kill them no questions asked.    
   
Considered.
I will raise my children to stand up for themselves in a physical manner, like I did. Bullying me led to quite a few bloody noses and one broken bone for the people who tried it.

I don't leave my gun in the car when I'm not driving it. I carry it with me at all times, except when entering government buildings. But if it did get stolen, I would report it right away. I know the serial number, and I have a backup piece in case it does get stolen or broken.

The day I can't outdraw a junkie is the day I give up professional shooting, but say a junkie does kill my wife; in the state I live in, defense of married partner or child counts exactly the same as self defense. If the junkie was in my house at the time, there's no deliberation; castle law. Or make my day law, depending on what it's called in your area; but where I live, if someone breaks into your house you can kill them no questions asked.

Considered.
User avatar #830 to #448 - basicargentinian (09/08/2012) [-]
Yeah, the thing is in argentina self defence law is not that heavy, if someone enters your house you can't kill them without getting jail time unless you have absolute proof of your life being in danger.

(if someone breaks in and starts grabbing stuff you can rough him up a little and give him to the police, but you can't even threaten them with a gun)
User avatar #468 to #430 - lickilicky (09/07/2012) [-]
1.) Lock it up.
2.) Not your fault you got robbed.
3.) Self defense.
User avatar #456 to #430 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/07/2012) [-]
>Scenario one. School shootings rarely happen. Most adults keep there guns up and locked away. Plus the reliability of a weapon such as a gun, in a hostile situation, is worth the low risk of my son going ape **** and shooting up his school.

>Scenario two: That's just ****** luck. Just because someone breaks into my car and steals a gun in my name, doesn't mean I am going to jail. Who would keep the gun in there car, anyways. Thats also highly improbable.

Scenario 3: You have the right to defend yourself, if someone shoots at you or your loved one, you are allowed to defend yourself and kill the man.
User avatar #450 to #430 - badsamaritan (09/07/2012) [-]
Consider the following the gun is with him the whole time. Driving, sleeping, all the time
User avatar #431 to #414 - mrsInuyasha (09/07/2012) [-]
you are talking about self defense. Guns are not for self defense. There are made for the sole purpose of killing. There are many ways to defend yourself and your loved ones.
User avatar #444 to #431 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/07/2012) [-]
Any weapon can be used for self defense. Just because I shoot someone, doesn't mean they are going to die.

If they are trying to harm other people for personal gain, no matter the reason, they pretty much deserve what is coming to them anyways.
User avatar #452 to #444 - mrsInuyasha (09/07/2012) [-]
I respectfully disagree.
User avatar #461 to #452 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/07/2012) [-]
Well, your logic is flawed then. Sorry.
User avatar #471 to #461 - mrsInuyasha (09/07/2012) [-]
I dont think so. Its true that any weapon can be used in self defense. But a gun is made for only one purpose, to kill. To make it easy to kill. Thats it, nothing else.
User avatar #505 to #471 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/07/2012) [-]
It depends on where you aim. It's the people doing the killing, not the weapon. Everything is simply a tool.

Besides, sometimes you have to kill somebody to defend yourself.
User avatar #517 to #505 - mrsInuyasha (09/07/2012) [-]
You can kill with your bare hands but you use them for many things. You can beat someone with a bat but it is made for a sport. You can burn someone in a fire but fire has many uses as well as the devices used to start a fire. You can beat someone with a wrench but it is built for fixing many things. Or you can shoot someone with a gun which is made for.......nope, just made to make it easier to kill someone. A gun is not a tool.
User avatar #536 to #517 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/07/2012) [-]
Point taken. But it's still a tool.

Tool. Noun: A device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

"One held in hand" You are still the killer. The gun is just a means of doing it easier, yes. But hell, some guns are sturdy enough to be used as a hammer. And, without guns, people living in wild regions of the earth, would have a much harder time feeding themselves and their family.
User avatar #669 to #536 - mrsInuyasha (09/08/2012) [-]
Of course you are still the killer. Someone who wants to kill someone else will do it no matter by what means, guns just make it easy. Guns are also useful and have there place and purpose. I dont think guns shouldnt exist but I do think it shouldnt be so very easy to legally get your hands on one. The accessabiity ties directly to gun related crime. I feel like if it was a little harder to get a gun maybe we would see a difference in gun wounds and deaths.
User avatar #688 to #669 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/08/2012) [-]
As I saw somewhere else in the comments section, there is a huge black market for guns. Making it harder for citizens to get guns wouldn't change anything. We would only see the increase in deaths of innocence. Since an average Joe couldn't pick up a gun and use it if he needed to as easily.
User avatar #712 to #688 - mrsInuyasha (09/08/2012) [-]
True. Punishments would also be harsher to those who had guns illegally. Not to mention all the accidental deaths that happen every year because idiots are handed a gun when they ask for it. Leaving it out for children or doing something stupid with it themselves.
User avatar #727 to #712 - TheRetardedEskimo (09/08/2012) [-]
Even though an accidental death is sad, I really don't feel to badly for the adults that accidentally **** up with there gun. I just can't. The gun fires in one direction, it's entirely their fault of they shoot someone, or themselves with it.

And it's just really bad parenting if a kid gets a hold of it somehow. They shouldn't have had kids or a gun. But it's still there fault.

I kind of have this complete resentment of alcohol. I loathe it, no matter what the form. *Except for cleaning alcohol, of course* And I don't think anyone should have it. Even if they are responsible with it, because then, that creates more profit for the producers, and then they make more for irresponsible people.

Well, the same can easily be said about guns. So I've been learning to repress those feelings.

So honestly, you kind of either have to be a purest, or be human and realize that, people are stupid. And we aren't going to have a perfect world. So, I'd rather grab a gun and protect myself.
User avatar #736 to #727 - mrsInuyasha (09/08/2012) [-]
Your point is valid. Not that I feel so strongly about guns as you do alcohol but still valid. This is all speculation on my part. I dont know for a fact that making it harder to get a gun would make gun related crime go down. No one would know unless it was actually tried, same with other proposals. But if it could save some lives it would be worth it. Maybe having a gun makes you feel safer just not for me. I couldnt see myself carrying a gun with me where ever I go, even though I have a mossy and more at home.
User avatar #201 - gasster (09/07/2012) [-]
This is stupid ." would you use a localised nuclear bomb on a town of pedophiles? "

Yes? Then you're pro nuclear war!

Silliness
User avatar #548 to #201 - lazypaul (09/07/2012) [-]
You nailed it.
User avatar #762 to #548 - gasster (09/08/2012) [-]
Thanks brother
User avatar #562 - vanoreo (09/07/2012) [-]
Restrictions on guns will never solve gun problems.

Pot is illegal and look how many people smoke it.

Source: Stoner Channel (assuming that not everyone on the stoner channel is 12)
#308 - slumberdonkey (09/07/2012) [-]
Don't tell me what i believe.
#89 - misterklass (09/07/2012) [-]
No. Because knowing my luck and lack of experience with guns i'd miss and shoot the person i love, after which the bullet would ricochet off 2 walls and hit my dog.
[ 775 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)