good guy reagan. . lltc ti 11' I. <-- I made this like a year ago.
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - John Cena (01/15/2013) [-]
He signed the Mulford act as governor of California in '67.
#36 to #2 - AndrewArctic (01/16/2013) [-]
he was the governor as a Democrat back then, he later changed to more conservative views
#10 - I Am Monkey (01/16/2013) [-]
<-- I made this like a year ago.
User avatar #40 - ronyx (01/16/2013) [-]
ITT: Bunch of butthurt faggots on both sides of the argument.
#43 - matralith ONLINE (01/16/2013) [-]
****		 guns, just use your fists.
**** guns, just use your fists.
#44 - teets (01/16/2013) [-]
tfw he also supported limitations on the sale of assault rifles

User avatar #124 - Crusader (01/16/2013) [-]
People, it's not as simply as banning guns and so on.
It's the fact that bearing arms is protected by the constitution, so if you start taking away certain things from the constitution then you create a system where you only obey bits and pieces of the constitution.
That doesn't work, a system of laws where people pick and choose what laws to obey simply does not work.
If they revoke the right to bear arms, what's to stop them from saying you no longer have a right to free speech, or have that "free speech" heavily restricted, what's to stop them from revoking your right to a speedy trial, your right to anything?
#130 to #124 - byposted (01/16/2013) [-]
President Obama the Second will sign the bill entitled, "Elastic Clause Act" in response to the Sandy Hook massacre.

This will modernize our constitution so that the bigoted, racist, sexist, prejudice, laws and amendments will be immediately made something to be proud of. The Supreme Court, now that all the old White men left, is now progressive and interprets the Clause as does his loyalty.
#83 - bathoryhannibal (01/16/2013) [-]
Is anyone else wondering what percentage of people on this site were politically active during the Reagan's time in office? Just a random thought.
User avatar #14 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
I find it hilarious that the government who relies on armed protection and sells weapons to cartels and insurgents and trains them to take over a regime that they don't agree with wants to ban scary guns.

inb4 "But if there were no guns there would be no shootings"
If the only reason that people aren't killing massive amounts of people is because they don't have the right tools, then it's a societal problem, not a problem with guns
User avatar #42 to #14 - sovereignsunkown (01/16/2013) [-]
but a social problem can also be caused by a notion that weapons are everyone's right. if someone is going to become violently angry, isn't it better to make sure that there is not a weapon close at hand?
personally, i don't think outright banning is the solution, but stricter licensing programs, firearms registration, maditory psychiatric evaluations for gun owners, and mandatory gun safety courses would all be good ideas, many of those were implemented in Canada, who have a similar number of guns proportionate to america, with a significantly smaller rate of violent crime
User avatar #70 to #42 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [-]
Actually, I think if everyone were more familiar with the concept of the Second Amendment as a right, there would be less issues with guns.

People have been killing since the beginning of time. Politicians sitting in Capitol Hill won't change that. The root of the problem is mental health and our inability to properly diagnose and treat people who need help. The solution is not to punish everyone ELSE.

Look at what the government has done with sex and drug education: They've educated teenagers on the realities of the two subjects and explained how to best keep themselves safe. If you did something similar with firearms, you could only help people develop a responsible attitude towards weapons.
User avatar #122 to #70 - sovereignsunkown (01/16/2013) [-]
i was under the impression that the american government's education on drugs and sex caused a lot more problems than they solved.
i also don't see any of the things i listed as "punishments", and don't see why anyone else would. all of those things make sense, and would keep mentally unstable, emotionally unprepared, or simply people too stupid to handle a weapon from owning a gun.
besides, i hate when people cite the second amendment because:
1) it's very vague. "the right to bear arms" could refer to literally any weapon. it does not say "firearms"; it says "weapon." under the second amendment i could have a pulse bomb in my garage.
2) there is no reasonable limits clause on the american constitution, which i feel is a very dangerous flaw. it ties in to point one, but really, how does one forget something THAT important?
User avatar #148 to #122 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
It does not say "weapon". It says arms, as in firearms. And as for your second point, you're using the same logic as people who think that people will marry turtles just because gays can marry
User avatar #181 to #148 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
it's a literal interpretation there. "arms" does not mean guns, it means weapons.
i'm saying that it's a flaw to have a clause in any constitution that does not set reasonable limits on the rights given, because that's very, very dangerous, because at that point, you can abuse those constitutional rights in all kinds of ways. For example, people getting away with anti-gay hate speech by using "Freedom of religion", which there are multiple documented cases of. i'm not saying a reasonable limits clause should be placed in specifically to check the second amendment; i'm saying it should be a requirement of any charter of rights and freedoms.
User avatar #182 to #181 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Civilians will never own nukes, large bombs, or anything like that so don't even go there. Plus that argument in itself is a logical fallacy. Just because someone has something doesn't mean they'll use it. People are allowed to own tanks and attack helicopters, but when's the last time you heard about someone killing with one?
User avatar #183 to #182 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
i'm well aware of the slippery slope fallacy. i'm not saying someone is ACTUALLY going to do that, but i'm saying that the constitution does TECHNICALLY allow for that, which is a huge flaw. the "reasonable" limits clause (relating to the second ammendment) would more imply that restrictions are in place for civilians to own guns that have no purpose other than killing people. there is literally no reason for a civilian to own any weapon more powerful than a hunting rifle, outside of bona-fide gun collections.
User avatar #184 to #183 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
There you go again with that "need" argument. You don't need a computer, you don't need a car, you don't need **** . All you need is food, water and protection from the elements. There is literally no functional difference between an AR15 and say, a Mini-14. The difference is purely cosmetic. It looks scary, therefor it must be banned
User avatar #185 to #184 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
that's not a need arguement, that's saying "there is no non-harmful purpose." stop attributing things to my arguements that i'm not saying.
i suggest you take a look at Canada's gun laws for a better example; any firearm that can not be used for a legitimate purpose (like hunting or the like) is generally illegal, because the only reason to own such a weapon is to
A) "just to have it" (if you have such a weapon, what's to say it will not be stolen, or improperly used by a family member...say a curious child, perhaps?)
B) defend yourself (which is overkill. get a 9mm handgun or a 12 guage or some otherperfectly reasonable weapon for a civilian to own)
C) kill people. (i don't even think i have to justify this one)
it makes quite a bit of sense that weapons of this sort should not be available to the general public
User avatar #186 to #185 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
As for option A, that's all the goddamn reason I need to own a babby-killin machine gun, who are you to say I'm not responsible enough to own something?

Option B: Again, you have no right to say what is or isn't appropriate for me to have as long as what I am doing with it doesn't harm anyone

Option C: You can kill someone with just about anything, more people drown every year than are killed by guns, we should ban water then huh? Rifles are used in an extremely small amount of gun crimes, and an even smaller amount of murders. The things you say are "perfectly reasonable" for home defense? They kill more people every year than any other gun around.

And then there's option D: Almost every shooting sports associating uses the AR15 platform in their competitions.
User avatar #143 to #122 - durkadurka (01/17/2013) [-]
From what I understand teen pregnancy has been going down. I think the same's true for drug use (excluding pot) but I'm not sure. The point is that education can go a long way.

Your list didn't include much of anything that could be considered a "punishment", my statement was more of a response to some of the proposals to ban certain weapons, magazines and attachments.

The amendments are supposed to be vague as to maintain relevance long after they were written. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of providing American citizens with the means of overthrowing their government should the need arise. After all, that is exactly what the founders did to the British. So yes, I could possibly make the case that I should be allowed to own ANYTHING the military has.

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It provides instruction for exactly what the government can do. Anything outside of what is listed in the Constitution is either a right of the states or the people. The founders didn't want the government to grow outside of its determined role. (We've pretty much failed at keeping things that way). Your unalienable rights are not supposed to be limited, so long as they do not infringe upon another's. This was no mistake or oversight.
User avatar #53 to #42 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
If you would listen to my whole argument, that is EXACTLY what I'm advocating here. What I'm speaking out against is the ban of firearms with "Scary" features.
User avatar #59 to #53 - sovereignsunkown (01/16/2013) [-]
new thread feature dude, i just saw the first post and nothing else.
curse you magical fairy princess
User avatar #26 to #14 - trevcars (01/16/2013) [-]
Why is it that China, Canada, Australia, England, and so many other countries have so much less gun violence? I mean yes, if you were a first grade teacher and taught a bunch of little kids and one of them started eating the crayons you're not going to take the crayons from all the kids...but what if 5 or 6 kids start eating them? Then you might have to figure something out. I do not agree that guns should be banned in the States because that would be stupid, i just think they need stricter laws. And after all the shootings, how can one not agree?
User avatar #30 to #26 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
I really don't get why people just skip over someone's argument to get their own voice heard. I'll repeat it one more time: Banning guns only removes the tools. We need better mental health facilities so that people can actually get the help they need. We also need to get rid of the stigma of people with mental health issues. Not everyone with a chemical imbalance in their brain is a mass-murdering psychopath waiting to happen. We, as a people, need to stop sensationalizing every act of violence in the news. Instead of knowing all about the killer, why don't you learn a few of the names of the kids killed in the shooting? The more we glorify violence and immortalize the people who commit these atrocities, the more its going to happen. We have a violent culture, and instead of letting this **** divide us and make progress impossible, we need to find stuff that works and that we can agree on.
User avatar #145 to #30 - trevcars (01/17/2013) [-]
Come on man. Why you acting all ******* serious? I disagree with you and am in no mood to try and change your mind. You don't think guns should have stricter laws that's your opinion.
User avatar #147 to #145 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Are you retarded? You post in a serious thread and get butthurt when you get a serious response?
User avatar #149 to #147 - trevcars (01/17/2013) [-]
All I'm saying is that so many other countries have stricter laws and it works. Why can't the US realize that a citizen should NEVER be able to own a military style weapon.
User avatar #150 to #149 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Not military style. Military has full auto, burst, and short barrels. All of which are either banned or too expensive and time consuming to get. And no it doesn't work. Almost every country that has banned guns to some extent has a higher violent crime rate than the US. The only thing different is that gun crime makes up a smaller percentage of their violent crime
User avatar #151 to #150 - trevcars (01/17/2013) [-]
If you did the math all the countries I listed earlier would have less gun related crimes. Why? Because of the stricter laws. Like I said, anyone who thinks all guns should be banned is stupid because there is no way on earth that will work. I just think that after 20 young kids are shot dead in a school, someone should make a change.
User avatar #152 to #151 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Way to completely ignore my point. I'm trying not to argue with people who don't listen, it just raises my blood pressure unnecessarily
User avatar #153 to #152 - trevcars (01/17/2013) [-]
Whatever, if you don't think there needs to be a change then that's up to you. Hopefully your government has more sense.
User avatar #154 to #153 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Again way to ignore every other point I've made. I'm glad your government has higher restrictions on guns, you're obviously not intelligent enough to have an intellectual discussion without trying to talk over people just to get yourself heard, let alone have an argument without pulling a gun on someone. I have advocated for change this ENTIRE TIME. Banning guns isn't the answer. We need better background checks, better mental health care, and to rollback the violence in our culture. If we ban guns, gun crime will go down. But guess what will come up? Just about every other type of violent crime. Stabbings, muggings, rapes, assaults, all that. Guns aren't the reason, they're the how. We need to fix the reason. Removing the how is just a bandaid.
User avatar #155 to #154 - trevcars (01/17/2013) [-]
Well now who's ignoring who? I agree that guns shouldn't be banned. I said that at least twice. I just think you need stricter laws. And yes I also agree that there should be better background checks too. My country has a lot of sick in the head people, but because they have a harder time accessing guns, there are less shootings. And I know we have less people, but even if you go by the percentage, the US is much higher. Why not just try it? I bet you any money if you had the same laws as us there would be less gun related crime. But because people like you are so against even trying it out, it may never happen. And I'm oh so sorry if i missed your point again, but honestly I don't give a **** . This is my opinion. I guess we should agree to disagree.
User avatar #160 to #155 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Englands logic: We have less gun crime which makes violent crime okay. You should listen to us about self defense laws.

Also, forgive if I don't take cues from a set of countries who pretty much pride themselves on well documented cases of assault charges against people who defended themselves or home.
User avatar #156 to #155 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
I swear to god, it's like you're intentionally being ignorant. Yeah gun crime would go down, but every other type of crime would go up. Look up Britain's violent crime rate. Higher than the US, but less gun crimes. Why ban guns if more people are going to get stabbed, mugged, raped or assaulted?
User avatar #180 to #156 - trevcars (01/17/2013) [-]
I give up. You win. Go get a cookie or something
User avatar #98 to #14 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
Before anyone else says anything more, I ask you to take five minutes to take a look at this
User avatar #144 to #98 - durkadurka (01/17/2013) [-]
Right on! People want to ban the big scary guns because it's the easiest "feel good" course of action. The real solution is much harder.
#15 to #14 - jinkazama (01/16/2013) [-]
Tim is a psychopath who wants to go on a rampage.

If tim lives in say, ireland, where guns are illegal, he will have a very hard time finding one and will probably end up just using a knife.

If tim lives in america he can get an arsenal of guns pretty easily.

Tim is no more mentally insane in either country.

Now, tell me Onemanretardpack, in which country can tim do the most damage?

User avatar #17 to #15 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
Way to skip around my point. My point isn't that guns aren't dangerous, it's that taking away guns isn't going to stop people from hurting people. If the only thing stopping someone from killing a bunch of people is the right tools, it's a problem with our society. Taking away guns won't fix that problem, it's just a bandaid. Like people never killed more than five people before guns were invented? Our culture is violent. A lot more than any other country, and we need to DEAL WITH that problem, not just push them under the rug and pretend guns are the reason those maniacs killed people. I'm all for universal background checks and mental health checks. Hell, I'd even be for a required license for anyone who wants to buy a gun if it meant we didn't have to go through with this stupid law about banning scary guns.
User avatar #21 to #17 - gottdammit (01/16/2013) [-]
You are right. But why NOT ban guns? Wouldn't that be the first step forward?
User avatar #22 to #21 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
By that logic, we should make murder illegal. Oh wait.. It is. Banning guns just makes felons out of law abiding citizens. And I'm pretty sure being criminalized for interests that don't harm anybody is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that guns are to be used for hunting, not for self defense, and only VAGUELY implies we should use them for revolution. The one thing it DOES say is that the militia (pretty much every adult male of age and good physical shape), has the right to bear arms, and the right shall not be infringed on any way. I'm not some nut who thinks the government is going to become a dictatorship, but it's far more likely than the 2012 apocalypse and people flipped their **** over that. I like guns because I'm a huge fan of the engineering and advancements in technology and society that has come about because of them. And I'd like the ability to defend my relatively small self against harm and to be able to hunt for food, if I were not able to find food regularly
#187 to #22 - jinkazama (01/18/2013) [-]
So what your saying is that murder should be legal? Since it being illegal doesn't stop 100% of murder?
User avatar #188 to #187 - Onemanretardpack (01/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. All the points I've made have been leading up to the conclusion that murder should be legal...

******* retard..
User avatar #45 to #22 - ICEDgrunge (01/16/2013) [-]
I've got one statement to make to you and a single question, as I like what you have to say about this predicament.

1: I think if you're going to talk about this stuff, you should change your name.
2: If there is a ban on the sale of guns, rather than the ban of owning them, how do you think it would impact this entire argument?
User avatar #52 to #45 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
I think it'd be horrible on the economy. Plain and simple. Manufacture, sale, and collection of firearms, ammo and accessories is a HUGE part of the economy. Millions would be out of jobs, hundreds of thousands of store owners would go out of business. The only kind of sale ban that would be even close to economically viable would be to ban private sale, which is already banned in a few states. But on the other side, it's the states decision to enforce the ban. Many states are about as pro-gun as you can get, and there would be no way they would enforce the ban of private sale.
User avatar #54 to #52 - ICEDgrunge (01/16/2013) [-]
I feel like an idiot. I saw that outcome from a million miles away yet that didn't stop me from not realizing that. Thanks for slapping the logic into me.
User avatar #56 to #54 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
Although, I do believe the US government should be banned from selling weapons, if you catch my drift..
User avatar #55 to #54 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
If I came out and sounded like a dick, I'm sorry. But this **** really pisses me off. BOTH sides of this are going about it all wrong. One side is asking too much, and the other won't budge at all. If they both would realize that most gun owners don't want guns to kill people or "fight teh gubmint", we could both work towards an actual compromise that would work great for both parties. Where the criminals and mentally ill don't have access to firearms and the law-abiding citizens who just want to hunt/kill paper people aren't ****** and turned into felons for having more than two guns or a magazine with more than 10 rounds.
User avatar #58 to #55 - ICEDgrunge (01/16/2013) [-]
I agree with you. It's been like this for too long to count, both sides of this argument are just not right, I can't see the situation getting better without change, but the fact like you said that one half of the people don't even want to approach that is barbaric. It's been like that for such a ridiculously long time, we just keep kicking the can down the road and hoping that people forget about our current problems until someone else has to deal with it because it popped up again because nothing was fixed, but I digress. The 2 parties have too much pride and too little concern all around to see middle ground, and that's where the best option lies. We won't fix anything without someone giving something up, and it doesn't just have to be one side forking something over just as long as we don't get ******* stupid about it. I don't know man, this problem really gives my head a twist, there's so much to think about with this **** going on.
User avatar #68 to #58 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
I personally think professional politicians should be outlawed. The only reason they do things is to keep themselves in power and money. They don't do it for you, for me, or any of the country. They do it because of their nice little tax-exempt paycheck (which isn't so little!). Politicians should be either paid way less than they currently are, or only able to hold any kind of office for four total years in a lifetime
User avatar #78 to #68 - ICEDgrunge (01/16/2013) [-]
Exactly. Politicians are considered way more important than they really are, and the only judges of that importance is themselves. Being a politician should in no way be the means of keeping yourself financially afloat either, they're not regular people as they should be, "the government is ruled by the people, for the people", That statement is true when every John Smith can get into Harvard or Brown through their parents pocket alone. You have to be bred into politics nowadays and that is disgusting. I don't necessarily think they should be gotten rid of, but they should not have all of the perks that they are granted nowadays. In no way did they earn them.
User avatar #24 to #22 - gottdammit (01/16/2013) [-]
Right. As far as hunting goes, I support that. My family members live in rural areas and they have to feed themselves and in extreme cases fire a warning shot in the air if someone wanders into their property at night and doesn't answer their questions. Also, small guns may be carried in my country, although it is not common, because our law enforcement works pretty well (all our police officers are armed of course). But do you really need a semi-automatic gun? No. Only in the case your goverment turns against you, but than you don't stand a chance anyway, and your death is justified because you cannot be considered a civilian if you bear weapons which are made to kill human beings (in large quantities).
User avatar #32 to #24 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
"Wouldn't stand a chance anyway"
But what about Iraq and Afghanistan? A few poorly educated people with guns held up the progress of both the US AND the Russian military. And our world is definitely not based on needs anymore. If it were, we wouldn't need internet, we wouldn't need cars (let alone ones that go over the speed limit). Using needs as an argument in a world of rights and wants is a logical fallacy
User avatar #158 to #32 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
The reason why that American invasion on Middle East is taking so long is because you can't have all out attacks on terrorist dens because of the civilians. That is why each and every attack must be carefully planned and executed, or else you would have massive collateral damage everywhere. Those people which are considered civilians do not have guns though. In USA, where apparently a lot of people have guns, you could wipe out a smaller town and claim that its citizens were a potential threat and that the attack was "preventive" (American army likes to use that term to justify their deeds).

Also, you don't live in a rural area of eastern Europe. Easy for you to say our world isn't based on needs anymore.
User avatar #165 to #158 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, but you're also implying that the US would put Iraqi civilians above their own civilians. They wouldn't full out attack any fighters on US soil because it would create such a ********* that the government couldn't justify. It would be virtually identical to Iraq or Afghanistan, save the landscape. A few well armed individuals with hit and run tactics, blending in with the civilian populace while the army tries to fight a losing battle with an asymmetric force. It didn't work in vietnam, not Iraq, and not in Afghanistan
User avatar #167 to #165 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
But then dissidents start to be considered terrorists.
User avatar #171 to #167 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
And that mattered in Iraq? Consider them what you want, if you all out attack them, you'll kill civilians. The US couldn't get away with them in Iraq and they won't get away with it here.
User avatar #173 to #171 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
The USA gets away with everything they do in Iraq...
User avatar #175 to #173 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Every country gets away with that **** , but I have never seen a country that isn't a tyrannical government get away with killing it's own people.
User avatar #177 to #175 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
Weak countries who do that are called tyrannic. If a powerful state such as USA did that, everyone would nod in agreement and maybe even offer their help. That's the sad truth of our world.
User avatar #179 to #177 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
As if any country needs a reason to hate the US more. More countries sympathize with the Iraqis than the US
User avatar #50 to #24 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/16/2013) [-]
because 150 million guns turned against 3 million has absolutely no chance of winning...
User avatar #157 to #50 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
150 million people with guns turned against 3 million people with guns, tanks, gunships, and guided missiles don't stand a chance. Not to mention that most of Americans follow their government in everything it does, so only a small bit of that 150 million would actually attempt to do something.
User avatar #159 to #157 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Let's say a group of about 10 million decides it wants to fight. They raid a military base... Hey look, now they have tanks and planes and missiles. If they do it right then the government stands absolutely no chance. While equipment plays a role numbers matter a lot too. And if you hadn't realized most militaries are and up-side down house of cards, you take out the leader and the rest falls with it, or at least is in chaos for awhile.
User avatar #161 to #159 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
Yes, but that 10 million isn't a mass of people concentrated on one spot. Ten million would be every 30th citizen of the US. That people wouldn't be able to gather on one spot, they would be scattered in small numbers all over the country. And even if such a small group (which would most likely be poorly organized) could take over a base, you can't assume they would know how to use the military equipment right away. They would be wiped out before they figured how to conduct all that weaponry.
User avatar #162 to #161 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
The u.s. military is very well known for it's quick decisive action and the american people are well known for not knowing how to do anything... If you have a thousand people at least ONE of them is going to know how to work the equipment and teach the rest. Also, this is all assuming the military actually agrees to fight it's own people.
User avatar #163 to #162 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
For one in a thousand to teach them something... it would take time. That's why I said that they would not be able to use it right away. And in such cases, the American military would have decisive reaction. Also, remember that we're talking about a small group of people who killed or captured the garrison of the base. They are considered dissidents, and of course that the military would agree to fight them.
User avatar #164 to #163 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Let's say that Jim, one of the dissidents is bob's brother. Bob is in the military. No matter what his brother did is he gonna fight? Every single soldier in the military has a family, if you ask them to turn against them they probably won't do it. If anything it wouldn't be a case of the people vs. the military it would be the people vs. congress and the president. But if it was the military, let's say they gunned down a bunch of protesters who were yelling at them and throwing things, ignoring the takeover part, what do you think people are gonna do?Remember what happened in bost a couple hundred years ago? It would be 1776 all over again.
User avatar #166 to #164 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
A person who has a brother in the army won't join the dissidents anyway. And even if it does, do you really think that the tacticians would send the soldiers from that area? If, let's say, that they base is located in the east coast, they would send soldiers that originated from the west. That's a tactic that was used by the Romans, do you really think modern Americans wouldn't think of that?
User avatar #168 to #166 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Do you really think that soldiers joined the military to control the population? No they didn't, and just a scattered few of them need to realize that they are doing exactly the opposite of what they joined for and the rest will follow. Are you really gonna kill the people that you joined the military to protect?
User avatar #169 to #168 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
Yes. Every historical event ever proves that the military attacks their own government only if the tide of the battle turns.
User avatar #170 to #169 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Every historical event definitely proves that a small group of people can't win against a large government. History also definitely says that people are rational and would see other people of their country as terrorists even if they were.
User avatar #172 to #170 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
I'm saying that an army will always side with the government first. And just in case you think your fight for independence is a good example of a "small group of people" winning against a large government, you're wrong. The dissidents were far more numerous than army members, and you were a half a world away from the actual center of the government in the tape when overseas transport took a ******** of time. And you had the help of the French there.
User avatar #174 to #172 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
Russia, several south american countries, the middle east over throws a government on a yearly basis.
User avatar #176 to #174 - gottdammit (01/17/2013) [-]
Again, numbers AND the fact that they don't have a decent army in small South American
or Middle Eastern state. As for Russia, I assume you are talking about those smaller states which rip apart from Russia, and when it comes to that... guess what? Numbers! I know what I'm talking about, it happened here a little over two decades ago.
User avatar #178 to #176 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/17/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is because you'd lose anyway you wouldn't fight? I know I'd prefer to die fighting for my rights than live in a world without them. And the right to bear arms is the very right that allows me to do that.
User avatar #74 to #21 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [-]
At that point we might as well just walk up to the capital, drop our pants, and bend over.
User avatar #72 to #15 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [-]
1. Because psychopaths plan these kinds of shootings, Tim would have time to obtain his weapon of choice.
2. It is easy to properly maintain a weapons ban on an Island-country smaller than a considerable amount of American STATES.
3. American culture is considerably more violent.
4. A man in China was able to stab around 20 children with a knife.
5. These shootings have only occurred in gun free zones (with the exception of Tuscon AZ). NRA conventions and gun shows are relatively free of violent gun crime.
User avatar #16 to #15 - TimBisley (01/16/2013) [-]
>no guns

Pick one
User avatar #66 to #14 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [-]
It's possible that the Fast and Furious program was intended to scare citizens into backing stricter gun regs.

But then Sandy Hook happened and the government decided to use the deaths of 20 young children to further weaken the people's potential resistance to government.
User avatar #69 to #66 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [-]
I also think it's highly hypocritical that the left is saying that the NRA is standing on the graves of the children at Sandy Hook to further their agenda of repealing gun laws, when that's exactly what THEY are doing. "If you don't want more gun laws, you don't care about the kids at Sandy Hook!" is basically all I hear EVERY GODDAMN TIME I have this conversation. These are the same people who think abortions are a right, but think something outlined in the constitution as an inalienable right is something they can just wipe their asses with
User avatar #71 to #69 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [-]
Their very nature is to be hypocritical as it suits them.

They NEED the children to pull on people's heartstrings. Without a tragedy to shamelessly exploit, people are level-headed enough to realize that these people are just grabbing at our liberties.

The thing that bothers me most is that these laws do virtually NOTHING to prevent these kinds of shootings, yet they are portrayed as such.
#37 - randomnab (01/16/2013) [-]
If guns are illegal no one is ever going to get killed.

It's not like people have a way of getting illegal stuff.
#48 to #37 - frylord (01/16/2013) [-]
oh. My. God. This man is a genius, i vote him for president
#103 to #37 - John Cena (01/16/2013) [-]
keep generalizing faggot
#132 to #37 - ocnamesaregone (01/16/2013) [-]
Your argument is flawed on so many levels it's so 			*******		 annoying.    
I don't understand how people can actually believe in such pathetic logic.   
I guess we shouldn't make murder illegal because obviously, THERE'S STILL MURDERS UHH.
Your argument is flawed on so many levels it's so ******* annoying.

I don't understand how people can actually believe in such pathetic logic.

I guess we shouldn't make murder illegal because obviously, THERE'S STILL MURDERS UHH.
User avatar #138 to #132 - randomnab (01/16/2013) [-]
Owning a gun isn't bad unless you use it for X purposes.

Murder is bad no matter what.

Your argument is invalid.
#140 to #138 - ocnamesaregone (01/16/2013) [-]
You're missing the point of my argument and you're starting a new point, you're not really good at this gosh.   
My point is: by making guns illegal you greatly lower the number of crimes commited with guns; it makes it waaay harder for people to get gun and do, for exemple, mass shooting.   
It doesn't mean that some people won't be able to get gun, like aformentioned by you it is still possible for people to commit crimes and get it. The point is to MAKE IT HARDER.   
No one agaisnt gun pretends that there's not going to be any crimes with guns, just a lot less.   
Just like outlawing drugs is a way to make it way harder for people to get cocain.
You're missing the point of my argument and you're starting a new point, you're not really good at this gosh.

My point is: by making guns illegal you greatly lower the number of crimes commited with guns; it makes it waaay harder for people to get gun and do, for exemple, mass shooting.
It doesn't mean that some people won't be able to get gun, like aformentioned by you it is still possible for people to commit crimes and get it. The point is to MAKE IT HARDER.

No one agaisnt gun pretends that there's not going to be any crimes with guns, just a lot less.

Just like outlawing drugs is a way to make it way harder for people to get cocain.
#95 to #37 - John Cena (01/16/2013) [-]
If everyone has easy acces to guns nothing can go wrong. Every person in the damn countery being able to get acces to heavy firearms can't possibly be a bad thing!
User avatar #141 to #95 - ocnamesaregone (01/16/2013) [-]
I concur! Give everyone body armour, an automatic rifle, infite amo, and you shall see what? Murder? mass shooting? NAY!

#99 to #37 - bennjee **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #126 to #99 - randomnab (01/16/2013) [-]
I'm Macedonian. Automatic firearms are illegal, you need a simple permit to get other ones (unless you're albanian then you can run around with ak 47's and getting arrested would be discrimination). We've never ever had a school (or any other type) of shooting.
User avatar #13 - corneth (01/16/2013) [-]
*cough* *cough* Iran-contra *cough* *cough*
#8 - hazmathank (01/16/2013) [-]
My desktop background
#31 to #8 - pychanmid (01/16/2013) [-]
This one is mine.
#5 - bwbwbw (01/15/2013) [-]
Haha, loyds deletes a comment that shows his content to be false. Way to go buddy.
#6 to #5 - loyds (01/15/2013) [-]
regrettably, you are correct. I deleted your comment simply because i was angered by the fact that you would blatantly call me out like that.
User avatar #100 - cullenatorguy (01/16/2013) [-]
It think it's funny how people actually think the problem here is either mental health or gun laws being too loose. It's both.

Getting a gun is way too damn easy in the U.S. 75% of mass shootings are performed with legally obtained guns. All firearms, including pistols, need to be regulated more strictly. Increased buying age + increased wait time + 6 month class every week on how to fire and keep a gun + monthly check up on guns + yearly class to keep guns + extensive background checks = crazies and people who act on instinct not getting a gun. If you're a good, law abiding citizen, you'll have no trouble getting a gun at all.

Mental health also needs to be worked on. I have no idea how that would work. Yearly health checks on your brain possibly? I'm not sure, but it's an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Now none of this is going to change gang violence all that much. They'll get the guns illegally no matter what, although I'm sure numbers will go down at least a bit. The only solution to the gun problem that I can see would to be to get rid of gang violence. That's impossible. I do blame the issue on the 2nd amendment. If it wasn't in the constitution, I bet the gun culture in America today would be far far smaller.

It's in the constitution in case of a tyrannical government. Honestly, while that's a nice thought, the U.S. military would crush us. The founding fathers didn't anticipate drones, tanks, and airplanes. The only way a real revolution would work is if the military started to defect.

User avatar #108 to #100 - byposted (01/16/2013) [-]
75% of mass shootings are performed with legally obtained guns.
Citation needed.

Increased buying age + increased wait time + 6 month class every week on how to fire and keep a gun + monthly check up on guns + yearly class to keep guns + extensive background checks = crazies and people who act on instinct not getting a gun.
You do realize around 80% of gun-crime is committed by latino and black gangs who have in circulation, illegal guns.

Mental health also needs to be worked on. I have no idea how that would work. Yearly health checks on your brain possibly? I'm not sure, but it's an issue that needs to be dealt with.
How about pursuing a policy of Eugenics and using the mentally defective as state-laborers?

Now none of this is going to change gang violence all that much. They'll get the guns illegally no matter what, although I'm sure numbers will go down at least a bit. The only solution to the gun problem that I can see would to be to get rid of gang violence. That's impossible. I do blame the issue on the 2nd amendment. If it wasn't in the constitution, I bet the gun culture in America today would be far far smaller.
Looks like you came to all of my conclusions. You simply want more gun restrictions for the sake of having gun restrictions. That's silly.

It's in the constitution in case of a tyrannical government. Honestly, while that's a nice thought, the U.S. military would crush us.
If there ever is a rebellion, do you think the military would have the morale to put it down and kill its own people? When the uprisings in Germany happened during the early stages of the Communist Republic, the German police outright refused to act. Even the Soviet Special Forces who came in did not follow their commander's orders to "fire at will."

User avatar #129 to #108 - cullenatorguy (01/16/2013) [-]
No, I want gun restrictions so that crazy people (mass shootings) can't get guns as easily. This also stands for people who go out and get a gun whilst acting on emotions (i.e. pissed off wife/girlfriend who finds out their spouse is cheating on them or some other situation running on emotion).

I would like to think that the military wouldn't fight back, but we can't base that on other countries' history. There have been plenty of other rebellions in history where the country has brutally fought the rebels.

here's that source plus some:

most links refer back to motherjones, which is a reputable and trustworthy source.
#189 - tannerman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #76 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [-]
This whole gun ban effort has little to do with ending these mass shootings. That's why the legislation does little to improve mental health treatment and wouldn't have prevent the Sandy Hook shooting at all.

It's all about removing as much power from the people as possible. Sandy Hook is merely a vessel to manipulate the people into giving that power up.
User avatar #51 - baltre (01/16/2013) [-]
Yes gun restrictions would lower the amount of deaths by gun. But is it really so bad that people get killed. People get killed every day. It seems no one cares for the ******* in africa anymore? Why the **** argue over the death of some US citizens and just do something more importaint?
#57 to #51 - barehype (01/16/2013) [-]
'But is it really so bad that people get killed'

User avatar #63 to #57 - theseventhmirror (01/16/2013) [-]
Over-population can actually become a serious problem.
#79 to #63 - pepemex (01/16/2013) [-]
Ok then lead by example and kill yourself
User avatar #85 to #79 - theseventhmirror (01/16/2013) [-]
Well that's a little drastic.
If anything, advanced medicine would be to blame.
People are living longer and the very ill have a larger chance of surviving.
User avatar #88 to #85 - pepemex (01/16/2013) [-]
If you wouldn't shorten your life "for the good of the community" you shouldn't ask others to do that. People will try to live as long as they can (usually)
User avatar #91 to #88 - theseventhmirror (01/16/2013) [-]
I didn't tell anyone to kill themselves.
I just said over-population can become a serious problem.
Show me in my comments where I said "People should kill themselves"
Except there.--------------------------------------------------------^
That doesn't count.
User avatar #61 to #51 - trolljunkusa ONLINE (01/16/2013) [-]
Gun restrictions won't lower deaths by guns at all
#9 - KayRed (01/16/2013) [-]
Yes, instead he (not him personally, but congress) changed the laws so it would allow you to declare an insane person guilty, which kinda sucks, considering they have little control over their actions. So yeah, they held up gun rights at the expense of the mentally ill...woo hoo.
Yes, instead he (not him personally, but congress) changed the laws so it would allow you to declare an insane person guilty, which kinda sucks, considering they have little control over their actions. So yeah, they held up gun rights at the expense of the mentally ill...woo hoo.
User avatar #11 to #9 - shashashadow (01/16/2013) [-]
yes, but you can't institutionalize a person with out their consent now, and the funny thing about insane homicidal people is that they usually aren't very partial to the idea of getting help. allot of times the only psychiatric help they get comes from prisons.
User avatar #12 to #11 - KayRed (01/16/2013) [-]
I am pretty sure you can institutionalize some one if they commit a federal crime. In fact, it most cases of "Guilty, but insane," the guilty part will actually get treated, and once they are deemed mentally capable they are incarcerated.
User avatar #28 to #9 - mynameisgeorge (01/16/2013) [-]
Totally, because people can't pretend they're insane
#139 to #9 - John Cena (01/16/2013) [-]
Anders Behring Breivik was deemed mentally ill. Flipside of the coin and **** .
#87 - byposted (01/16/2013) [-]
Homicide rate for Whites per 100,000 (USA): 2.2
Homicide rate for Blacks per 100,000 (USA): 15

Now let's compare these two statistics to other comparable countries.

Homicide rate for Finland per 100,000: 2.2
Homicide rate for Guatemala per 100,000: 18.50

Why don't we just ban ******* ?

Checkmate, libtards.
#107 to #87 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #111 to #107 - byposted (01/16/2013) [-]
McDonalds must learn to adapt; either hiring proud White folk or creating burger dispensers to do that job.
#23 - Mahazama has deleted their comment [-]
#33 to #23 - gassnake (01/16/2013) [-]
Just many other regimes that want us to fall.
User avatar #34 to #33 - stevensftw (01/16/2013) [-]
No one who wants you to fall would have the capability for an invasion. Unless its China, then theres nothing you can do
#35 to #34 - gassnake (01/16/2013) [-]
There is always something we can do. Even if it only helps our country stand for even one more hour.
User avatar #67 to #23 - JabbaTheGut (01/16/2013) [-]
So, you are anti-gun... but your profile avatar is of an AK style gun firing...
FunnyJunk logic
#77 to #23 - John Cena (01/16/2013) [-]
North Korea
User avatar #39 to #23 - LtMcG (01/16/2013) [-]
The guns are not just used to keep the invaders out. But to keep our own government in check as well.
User avatar #27 to #23 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
The guns are to keep our own gov in check.
User avatar #60 to #27 - KayRed (01/16/2013) [-]
Good luck keeping a nuclear power in check with an untrained militia.
User avatar #80 to #27 - lazypaul (01/16/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter how many guns you have, the us army would crush you if it wanted.
User avatar #89 to #80 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
True but the military ,I was in the military so this is of personal knowledge, signed on to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. So it might be hard to get the entire military to attack the citizens that are defending the constitution. I think if it comes to that it will just be confusion for the first few months then the U.N. will come into play.
User avatar #93 to #89 - lazypaul (01/16/2013) [-]
So how does that have anything to do with citizens owning guns?
User avatar #96 to #93 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
Sorry I thought you was talking about how the military would crush the citizens. I was just replying to that fact.
#73 to #27 - CurlyGangster (01/16/2013) [-]
Except as the Syrian and Libyan Civil Wars have shown, an Armed Citizenry hardly means anything. The only time where the Anti-Government movements in both countries started to pose a threat was when members of the Military started defected. The Free Syrian Army actually started out as the Free Syrian Officers (defectors from the Army) and not some Militia. Send any Militia up against the US Military in any sort of conventional fight, and the US Military would stomp their teeth in without breaking a sweat. After the first Carpet Bomb or A-10 run, you would be lucky to have anyone that isn't running for their lives or dead.

Also, the Second Amendment was based on the use of Militia's for National Defense (to defend against foreign Invasion), for which an Armed Citizenry is important. Back then, a Militia armed with Muskets/Rifles and a few cannons could be pretty effective. Against a Modern-Combined Arms Military? Not a chance. Now, I want to keep Guns legal and available as the next White Southerner, but lets be reasonable here.
User avatar #81 to #73 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
look into the actual quotes of the "forefathers". As far as Syria and Libya, it is never pretty when the people stand-up to their governments. They are also fighting other nations there too. I can't remember if it is the soviets helping the regimes.
#90 to #81 - CurlyGangster (01/16/2013) [-]
Did you not understand what I said? The only reason why they can stand up to their Governments is the members of their Military that defected to their side. All the Civilians with AK-47's over there, and the only time they beyond a nuisance was when parts of the Military, who have training and serious Hardware, started fighting for them. Have all the AK's and AR's in Civilian hands you want. It doesn't prevent the Government to walk all over you, assuming they have Military Support. And if they didn't have Military support, your guns won't matter since the Military will overthrow them. The point is, Firearms are Irrelevant in any scenario where you are attempting to keep the Government check, only the Military is really relevant.
User avatar #102 to #90 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
Okay, I replied to your statement on the second amendment. Being that I was in the Army I can tell you we would have way more soldiers defecting from service in that type of situation. As I also stated the citizens are getting attacked by other nations as well as their own.
User avatar #65 to #27 - nerdrugger (01/16/2013) [-]
voting is what we are suppose to use to keep are government and representitives in check, not the threat of violence
User avatar #75 to #65 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
The guns are for when that stage failed. Voting works when the system is not corrupted beyond saving. I did not say it in a way meaning that I get pissed at the president for some reason and I just go and shoot him/her up. My main point can be said no better than how V said it in V for Vendetta "People should not be afraid of their governments the governments should be afraid of the people." No one wants violence but when a regime gets to a point where it is too big and controlling to where nonviolence stops working then the people need to stand up and put the government on it's knees. We the people are the ones that make the country. Not the few people in a building that "has no windows" . Sorry for the rant. Why change something that is not broken. When the U.S.A. started The constitution held only 5 federal laws. Now you need a library to hold them. The Uninted States started so the states had their own laws to govern the people, not control, so the government does not get to big. learn about history before it gets repeated.
User avatar #135 to #75 - nerdrugger (01/16/2013) [-]
well when there are several mass shootings a year, that kinda makes me think that there is a problem

and there are reasons we have more federal laws today then we did the US started out

and we tried where the states had all the power and the federal government had none, that was the articles of confederation which was the government before the constitution. lets just say that form of government didnt work and that is why the constitution was written
User avatar #136 to #135 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
How many shootings have been stopped by legally armed citizens? Look it up. A majority of the shootings are done by persons on the wrong meds or taking the wrong doses. Read the constitution you missed some key points. tell me why we need 50,000+ federal laws that states had laws about already.
User avatar #146 to #136 - nerdrugger (01/17/2013) [-]
why do we have so many laws? because there are people that exploit things when it isnt a law.
why so many federal laws when states have similar laws? because when the fugitive crosses state lines and leaves that states jurisdiction trying to avoid prosecution

yes mental health is a problem, it is a shame that mental health programs keep having there funding cut inorder to prevent even a small tax increase

and i dont know how many shootings have been stopped by normal armed citizens. do you?

but how bout you read a bit

having reasonable gun legislation is an approriate response to all this craziness
#64 to #27 - cyberkite (01/16/2013) [-]
You don't need a gun to keep your own gov in check. It would only get you killed if you use it that way.
#47 to #27 - frylord (01/16/2013) [-]
What he said
#38 to #27 - Xepheros (01/16/2013) [-]
Then start using them.
User avatar #46 to #38 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
Yeah no **** .
User avatar #29 - kokkodellrrisch (01/16/2013) [-]
More like dumb guy Reagan.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)