The War on Drugs is a joke. The Second Amendment. uii, ' iii' writs WERE. I´m living in Germany, I´ve never owned a gun neither has anyone I know. None of us was assaulted, victim of robbery or ever had to protect his house with a sho
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

The War on Drugs is a joke

The Second Amendment

uii, ' iii' writs WERE
...
+2630
Views: 71077
Favorited: 117
Submitted: 10/06/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to jjotu E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(485):

[ 485 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#566 - futuramafan (10/07/2012) [-]
Holy crap what a ******** lol
#562 - holimountt (10/07/2012) [-]
walls of text....walls of ************* text everywhere

and the eco of my nonexistent ***** travels through out the never ending void of the universe....
User avatar #567 to #555 - GainesWorthy (10/07/2012) [-]
I'll take my red thumbs for this...
But that is a terrible analogy.

Guns kill people....

Voter ID fraud is serious, but the way they are going about it is unfair. I can't use my college ID to vote, but if I owned a weapon, I could use my firearms permit/license? Yeah... Okay.

Obvious statement of the day: Firearms kill people. Criminals have access to guns, however it is proven, if you have to jump through more loopholes to own a firearm, less guns would be illegally sold, since it would be harder for a black market dealer to acquire them.

/rant

Oh, also. I stand by Chris Rock when I say: Bullets should be expensive. If you shoot a dude with a 500 dollar bullet, no one will question it. If you're a criminal, the bullet prices would go up too to equal out the supply cost. So less criminals would be shooting people if their bullet they used was higher price.

(inb4 but that would drive companies into the ground....) I know.
User avatar #637 to #567 - techketzer (10/07/2012) [-]
Guns are inanimate objects. They do not kill. They do nothing on their own at all.

"since it would be harder for a black market dealer to acquire them."

You clearly have no idea how a market works.
Price is established by supply and demand, and there are quite a lot more firearms than people in this world.
And while nobody knows the exact figures, ~14 billion rounds of ammunition are newly manufactured annually. That makes approx. 40 million rounds every single day.

While the demand for weapons is high, the supply is over the top-abundant, so the prices will be low to moderate at worst.
Now how can you raise those prices? Taxes and trade limits.
What do taxes and trade limits have in common? Black market dealers laugh about them because they fully intend on violating them and they make their competition, the legal salesmen, utterly unable to compete.

tl;dr: Guns and ammo are cheap because there are metric ******** of them.
Those willing to break laws for a profit can always acquire and/or sell them very cheaply. Raising prices on legal gun sales only makes the black market even more profitable, while banning guns makes the black market the only option alltogether.
User avatar #672 to #637 - GainesWorthy (10/14/2012) [-]
That isn't how the market of back door shops work. Most guns sold to criminals are either from a supplier who acquires them legally and uses loopholes to get rid of the weapon. OR a back door shop.


Price would still be what you set it as. If you made guns a little harder to acquire it would still be harder for criminals to acquire.

I'm a proud concealed carrier.
#574 to #567 - youarenotme (10/07/2012) [-]
you are retarded, saying guns kill people is like saying playboy causes chaffed dicks. its like blaming the cheese burger for your being overweight. Guns don't kill, idiots with guns kill. If you make them harder to own then it just means the criminals will be the ones with them and the average joe like you or me is more susceptible to being victims of violent crimes since you want to take away our right to defend ourselves.
User avatar #671 to #574 - GainesWorthy (10/14/2012) [-]
Oh and your logic is wrong, that isn't how it works. There is a supplier who usually acquires guns legally or from a back door shop. If you crack down on that by enforcing gun laws. You can essentially help remove guns from the street.

My logic (Based off of several documentaries and Chris Rock)> Your logic.
User avatar #670 to #574 - GainesWorthy (10/14/2012) [-]
COnsider this. WHen I say guns kill people: It is implied that their owners do the shooting. An owner can't throw a bullet at someone and have it kill them. THey must fire the weapon. My logic still stands even though you're to ignorant to use common sense to see around what I said.



I am an concealed carrier btw.
#571 to #567 - violenthandjob (10/07/2012) [-]
Well by definition though a black market dealer wouldn't be affected in acquisition or selling thereof his wares by legalities surrounding them, which simply means laws don't affect black market trade.
0
#559 to #555 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #550 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
From my point of view, **** your 2nd Amendment (it's based on paranoia via the state anyhow), start taking a look on charts regarding gun-based criminality in states were gun-control is rather strict (like my own country, thank our otherwise idiot politicians for that!) and stop feeling so butthurt.

Since the guns would be more regulated, it would be a lot easier to track them and identify their owner. But hey, I guess that happens when you don't have serious weapon smuggling at your border.

Also, you CAN run from a knife or a bat. Oh yeah, but this is just me, from my point of view, pointing a firearm at someone and depressing the trigger is not manly or cool or anything (military left aside, because obvious reasons). That's something even the weakest and the most coward scum can do.
#579 to #550 - shredmaster (10/07/2012) [-]
Your idiocy is so advanced that I'm afraid I might catch it if I stay on the same planet with you for too long.
User avatar #594 to #579 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
Case in point: http://news.yahoo.com/gunless-calgary-american-policeman-jeered-letter-225750666 .html

I'm really beginning to believe that THIS is how retarded your average Joe actually is.
******* gunslingers, you would rather give up on your penis than give up your idiot guns.
User avatar #589 to #579 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
More arguments, less insults, ******** .

You see, the thing is, most Americans are afraid to admit that their wars maybe, just MAYBE, be wrong. That's why I was talking about the butthurt.
But no, our gun laws are perfect, we should be able to shoot the **** out of each other whenever we want, right?
Well, apparently it's obvious that too much freedom can seriously dumb you down.

P.S.: The whole "ban guns because criminals obviously obey laws" is completely & utter idiotic. But hey, your overgrown (just like your population) ego would never be able to accept that, right?
Proof that other ways ARE possible and that THEY ******* WORK? Well, open your goddamn paranoid egomaniac eyes and look at other countries
But hey, what can you expect from a country that was created by criminals, convicts and outcasts? GUNS, GUNS ***************** !
#640 to #589 - techketzer (10/07/2012) [-]
"Proof that other ways ARE possible and that THEY ******* WORK? Well, open your goddamn paranoid egomaniac eyes and look at other countries"

How about you take a spoonful of your own medicine and look at Switzerland?
Lowest crime-rate in bot gun related crime, overall violent crime and overall crime in all of Europe, and guess what, you ********* ?
Every man having served the mandatory term in the army has a fully automatic .223 Rem assault rifle at home.
Yes, you heard that right, ****** , civilians with military grade assault rifles.

Gun crime isn't about guns, you ******** , it's about crime and criminals.
If you want to rid yourself of crime, rid yourself of criminals and become a society of decent people. Trying to blame it on inanimate objects is completely moronic.
#591 to #589 - shredmaster (10/07/2012) [-]
"open your goddamn paranoid egomaniac eyes"
"overgrown ego"
You're doing a brilliant job of arguing a point instead of using insults.

"hurr durr, **** america, criminals and egomaniacs lolzz"

Shut up and sit the **** down, you're embarrassing yourself.
User avatar #595 to #591 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
Well, if all you can see are the acid remarks & insults, then you clearly have a case of horse vision. In which case arguing with you is redundant.
#597 to #595 - shredmaster (10/07/2012) [-]
I love how you post a link of someone who takes the second amendment too far and use that to argue your paper-thin point that America was created by convicts and criminals who just want to wave guns around. And yeah, this argument is pointless, because you're a narrow-minded bigoted **** who is more interested in bashing a country than actually stating anything other than anti-American slurs. When you learn to speak without sounding like a complete and utter biased idiot, then come talk to me.
User avatar #604 to #597 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
Biased? BIASED?

How can I be biased when I come from a country from the former communist block, who got democracy some 23 years ago? With millions of people who actually lived the good and the bad of the former regime?
How the **** can I be biased if I have such an obvious example from which to draw parallels and compare one political system with the other?
Also, knowing history and especially the history of a country also means discerning the psychology of the majority of that country.
Now, I'm more than willing to recognize that most of my compatriots have severe psychology issues, the result being a very mentally sick society.
But goddamn it, we still have more reality check than you.

If hating the **** out of idiocy and stupidity means being "bigoted", than fine. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws.
#609 to #604 - shredmaster (10/07/2012) [-]
Hating the **** out of idiocy and stupidity isn't being a bigot, but assuming that all Americans want to be able to own guns so they can shoot each other whenever they want IS stupidity. Some people want to own guns because they like to hunt, or they legitimately make them feel safe. Some people collect guns because it's just a hobby they like to take part in. Not everyone who owns a gun is a psychopathic egotistical ******** , and not everyone who DOESN'T own a gun is a model citizen who would never commit a crime. Decrying an entire COUNTRY of people just because there have been some instances you disagree with is the furthest thing from being fair or even reasonable.
User avatar #619 to #609 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
Let's leave hunters and collectors aside, shall we? Those are dedicated cases, with legit documents and papers (or at least they should be)
And let's resume to those who "legitimately make them feel safe". So, from where does this lack of personal safety stem from? Insecurity, perhaps? The inability to subconsciously trust the one standing next to you?
Also, how do you call such a brilliant system that allows you, when you're 18, to enroll OR buy a gun, but doesn't consider you ****** enough to drink a beer?

No, seriously, the sheer thought of an average Joe just waltzing in in a gun shop with some bucks and then leaving with a Mac-10 or an SMG or Glocks or whatever for me is literally terrifying. Because you give someone the capability of ending a life in the blink of an eye, just like that.
Quite seriously, I prefer my country's own criminal problems, that 99% include fights that MAY involve bats or knives or, from time to time, a very cheap katana (you usually see this happening between gipsy clans).
One more thing: if the 2nd amendment is so ******* great, then stop crying about important people that got shot. You know, JFK, John Lennon, Tupac, Dimebag Darrel.
#623 to #619 - shredmaster (10/07/2012) [-]
Lack of personal safety? I dunno, maybe from the fact that someone could break into your house at any time with a knife or a bat and end your life. I dunno about you, but I favor my chances more if I own a gun. It's not being paranoid, it's being aware. You're stupid if you just blindly trust everyone and always assume nothing bad will happen to you. And the point about the system not allowing you to drink at 18 is entirely irrelevant and another argument entirely.

You're a fool if you think a lack of the second amendment would have stopped any of those deaths. People who want guns for the sole purpose of killing other people will get them, legally or illegally. That arguments holds absolutely no water.
User avatar #631 to #623 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (10/07/2012) [-]
I'm not talking about being naive, thinking nobody will harm you.

But if you're afraid of someone breaking into your house, I dunno, secure your windows and get a metal door with 3 locks? Actually, if you live in a block of flats, at the 3rd floor or more, windows are not even a concern.
There are more defensive measures you can take than buying a gun, you know

Well, if the 2nd amendment was regulated, maybe David Chapman or Nathan Gale (obvious lunatics) wouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place.

Also, I would favor my chances more by moving out of a bad neighborhood, if needed be.
And the 18 years old thing has lots to do with it, since practically anyone from that age up can just go and buy a gun, just like that.

How much would you wager that if the US laws completely changed and guns started having serious regulations, all the gangs and other small organized crime would severely be reduced in number?
User avatar #641 to #631 - techketzer (10/07/2012) [-]
There are more guns than people in this world.
Black markets sell assault rifles for a few hundred bucks a piece.
Rest assured anyone intellectually capable of planning a crime is also capable of acquiring illegal firearms.

"How much would you wager that if the US laws completely changed and guns started having serious regulations, all the gangs and other small organized crime would severely be reduced in number?"

A huge amount of money, but with negative algebraic sign.
A defenseless public would be to organised crime and criminal gangs what an oversaturated nutrient solution is to bacteria colonies.
User avatar #542 - failtolawl (10/07/2012) [-]
**** , ****** is illegal but people still do it. let's allow it. right guys?
-1
#563 to #542 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#537 - ajmartin (10/07/2012) [-]
Related.
#536 - anonymous (10/07/2012) [-]
you... are a ******* genius
User avatar #533 - sterlingarcher (10/07/2012) [-]
I wish people knew that a society without guns can't defend their rights via them being seized by ones government (America) cmon people...
#525 - swagbot (10/07/2012) [-]








- A society only works if people decide to follow its rules.
- Criminals don't follow the rules of the societies they inhabit.
- Therefore, if you make it a law that people cannot own guns, then LAWFUL people will not have any guns, and LAW-BREAKERS will have guns.
******* . Duh.

Oh, so you want to seal off the entire state/country so that there are no guns at all in that country? That would reduce 'crime'? (Because, as we, all crimes are committed with guns, not with knives or cars or good ol' holdin' people down and rapin' em)

Guess what, somebody tried that! It's a mystical place called... JAPAN. In Japan, serial killers use knives and sharp melee weapons to commit their mass-slaughters. And Yakuza still get/use guns when they need to.

(TL;DR Only women and nannyish, over-estrogenic men want gun control, because they want a soft-bosomed government to take care of them. ******* )
User avatar #541 to #525 - emptysuperman (10/07/2012) [-]
You make pro-gun people sound like retarded hicks. Everyone, just know this isn't what every pro-gun person thinks like.
#543 to #541 - swagbot (10/07/2012) [-]
Make a better case then, faglord.
0
#522 - swagbot has deleted their comment [-]
#512 - peeeons (10/07/2012) [-]
let me go grow some ak 47s in my back yard...oh wait.
User avatar #509 - shinote (10/07/2012) [-]
I just saw this yesterday on facebook -__- did you steal this from "Gun Owners"?
User avatar #488 - shfiftyfive (10/07/2012) [-]
willy wanka is for people that are new here and chocolate
User avatar #520 to #488 - anondude (10/07/2012) [-]
and acting like a condescending ****
User avatar #485 - CapnInterwebz (10/07/2012) [-]
That's cool. But why are military grade assault rifles even available to anyone who gets a license?
#482 - bgbba (10/07/2012) [-]
I think that this argument isn't really well defined. Mainly, the war on drugs is a failure because people need them. People will sell their lives for drugs. Not to mention that drugs are usually frabricatable with just a little expertise. Hell, I could grow Weed, it isn't hard. It's a ******* plant. Guns, guns are different. First of all, to make a good firearm, you have to have VERY high skill levels. So essentially the black market's supply would be limitted to a very small pool of experts and McGuyvers who probably aren't loose cannons. Second, where's the demand? Most people who are pro-gun are also all about the law and following the law. The most outspoken people on guns are always those who think that they have a right to carry out the law themselves. Would they break the law? Also, nobody EVER suggests completely banning guns. So essentially, the demand would be a small pool of people who are already willing to break the law. So essentially the black market would exist purely for the people who are planning something nasty. Which is about one in a hundred thousand people, probably less. That is NOTHING compared to the drug market. Now personally, I think that people should be allowed to have guns in their homes and on their property: that's just simple self-defense. But in public, you're more likely to accidentally kill a bystander or someone you know than a criminal. Why? Because in all my years of life, I've seen plenty of guns, but not ONE crime in process. Not one. The chances of it happening to you are so small that it's pretty much just irrelevant. But, if you concentrate on that all day, you become a loose cannon. Quick to pull the trigger, if you get me. The point is, gun control for firearms in public is by no means as absurd or restricting 'muh freedoms' than it seems. Believe me. I live in the state of "Live free or die". I know libertarianism very well. But I support most gun control.

TL;DR It's a bad comparison.
0
#538 to #482 - nocta has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #518 to #482 - anondude (10/07/2012) [-]
Thanks for the novel, Charles Dickens, and I agree to a lot of what you said. But the idea of gun control should also include background and relative checks for anyone who wishes to purchase a gun. Right now, almost anyone can buy a gun, criminal or not.
User avatar #521 to #518 - bgbba (10/07/2012) [-]
Exactly. That's the problem.
User avatar #504 to #482 - viatio (10/07/2012) [-]
fabricatable*
User avatar #498 to #482 - ticticboom (10/07/2012) [-]
too long didnt read but im shur i have no idea what your talking about so heres some boobs to make others feel better ( o )( o )
#496 to #482 - anonymous (10/07/2012) [-]
holy **** that's a lot of text

thx for the TL;DR... :D
#466 - DjRicky (10/07/2012) [-]
**DjRicky rolled a random image posted in comment #113 at Iphone 5 **
User avatar #462 - banush (10/07/2012) [-]
People have been making guns for thousands of years. With todays technology and knowledge. You could make a gun with a steel pipe, a marble, and firecrackers. You would have to ban everything
#452 - residentdevil (10/07/2012) [-]
i can't believe people still think banning guns would be a simple answer, how would they get all the guns currently in circulation? it's simply too late to ban guns, in the uk/germany guns have never been legal thus they've never been on general sale, however if they were then obviously their gun crime would go up. Fact of the matter is having a gun is a liability, theres probably thousands of level headed people who have shown off their gun or fired a warning shot or shot a burglar in the heat of the moment simply because they have it.
#446 - thisotherdude (10/07/2012) [-]
I wish Canada had the second amendment, honestly the level of control here is ridiculous. I went to the courses for both restricted and non-restricted firearms and two months later got my license, that part is fair enough, what with the background/emotional checks and making sure you know how to use the damn things. But everything else like having to register every restricted firearm, having to get a permit to take it to the range and then take it back home (no joke, if you want to take a restricted firearm to a range, you actually have to get a permit to take it there, and then you need a permit to bring it back to your house), it's all a bunch of ridiculous, overly paranoid government ******** .

Oh and here's my favourite part, if someone breaks into your house and has a knife (and if by some miracle you manage to get your gun ready since all restricted firearms have to be locked up tighter then a small white guys anus in the prison showers) and you shoot him with your gun the police will completely overlook the fact that there was a dangerous person with a knife in your house and you were protecting yourself and potentially others, and you will get charged with ****** , use of a firearm on a human, use of a firearm in an urban area, ext... They'll lock you up for twenty years even if the guy was a wanted child rapist and killer and you were babysitting like twenty kids (unless you luck out and get one of the really good cops who will tell the agency that they shot the guy so you don't get ****** over, it happens very rarely but it still happens), it's the biggest load of **** ever.

tl;dr - Canadian gun laws suck dick.
User avatar #473 to #446 - bgbba (10/07/2012) [-]
You know what though? Your crime rate is FAR lower. Correlation or causation...
User avatar #503 to #473 - thisotherdude (10/07/2012) [-]
I'm sure there is a reason for said fact but I don't believe it's a result of the extreme gun laws.

1. You could easily use other weapons, axes, knives, sledgehammers, ext... Aren't banned at all (well there was one point where the mayor of Edmonton wanted to ban the sale of long kitchen knives but the idea was shot down because it was the stupidest **** anyone had heard of)

2. An illegal gun is not very hard to get, we might have less crime rate but that doesn't mean **** can't get bad here, go to downtown at midnight in any major city and it's no safer there then in America

3. I don't like the crime rate system, it doesn't take everything into account. It takes the total number of everything in said country so you can compare it to another. For example lets look at Canada in 2007 (rate per 100,000), in Ontario you had about 6200 crimes, now in the north west territories you had about 44000. Now lets consider how big Canada is compared to America, it's a lot bigger in size, but large parts of it are uninhabited, more so then America, America simply has more place that can contribute to the statistics. Some places will have a higher crime rate then somewhere in Canada and vice verse. I've never considered over-all crime rate to be a very good thing to go off with this kind of stuff.
#461 to #446 - anonymous (10/07/2012) [-]
I'm glad i read this, sorry bout Canadian gun laws friend
#459 to #446 - alexthecanadian (10/07/2012) [-]
You realize most guns used by gangs in Toronto are licensed, right?    
   
As we can see from this graph (look up Gun Politics in Canada on Wikipedia), gun crime has been going down with stricter gun control laws in Canada.    
   
Anywho, there are arguments for both gun control, and no control.
You realize most guns used by gangs in Toronto are licensed, right?

As we can see from this graph (look up Gun Politics in Canada on Wikipedia), gun crime has been going down with stricter gun control laws in Canada.

Anywho, there are arguments for both gun control, and no control.
User avatar #489 to #459 - bgbba (10/07/2012) [-]
There are opinions about both, but statistically, stricter gun control actually does help reduce crime. It's pretty much irrefutable.
#502 to #489 - swagbot (10/07/2012) [-]
Tell that to Chicago.

Dumbass.
#495 to #489 - buckinayy (10/07/2012) [-]
That skyrocket at the beginning was caused by the implementation of strict gun laws. Because criminals will not stop carrying their guns, but people who want to follow laws have to give them up. Thus making it easy for the bad guys to rob, rape, or ****** someone innocent.
User avatar #668 to #495 - alexthecanadian (10/11/2012) [-]
Do you have any evidence to back this theory up? I gave you mine.
Please show me when rape, ****** , and theft rates increased after stricter gun enforcement law were implemented.
User avatar #468 to #459 - thisotherdude (10/07/2012) [-]
Although that graph is very hard to make out I'd like to point out the fairly drastic increase shown around the time when the laws were first being implements, shot up (pardon the pun) quite fast and smoothly, where as the after is decrease at a very slow rate and unsteady rate.
User avatar #658 to #468 - alexthecanadian (10/09/2012) [-]
Yes, that is called "peeking".

If the registry had not existed, the crime rate would not be going down, it would be going up. The rate of decrease is irrelevant because the other option (ridding all gun laws) would only hamper relief efforts and contribute to the cause of the problem significantly, preventing the rate of decrease from existing.

Also, yes shooting someone in your house is a crime. If you have time to get your gun, you have time to call the police. You should NOT poses a gun for protection. Imagine a country that allowed all of its citizens to have guns with little to no control. The chaos that would ensue is inimaginable. Everybody protecting themselves, there is no need for the police now... Indeed, I see your point. You want to protect your family, BUT if you have time to get your gun, you have time to call the police. Aslo, if you by chance did grab your gun and shoot said criminal, you would not be charged. That is to say if it is for self defence. Shooting said robber for trespassing is a crime. If said robber is threatening your life (aka has a knife and has intentions of harming you) then you have the right to shoot that person ONCE.
[ 485 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)