Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#30 - necromaniac ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Please check out
This link will explain to you the difference between so called "Assault Weapons" and real "Assault Rifles" which are already heavily controlled and regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1989 Ban on the sale of newly manufactured machine guns to the public. Join the NRA, march on your state capital on the 19th and again on February 8th to protect the Second Amendment. This is freedom's last hurrah - not just for America but for the whole world.
#205 to #30 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
You mean the whole world as in all countries but America... in which all real lethal firearms are illegal? riiiggghhhttt
User avatar #144 to #30 - CapnInterwebz (01/18/2013) [-]
This isn't freedom's last hurrah, get your ******* priorities straight. This nation won't collapse on itself simply because a fraction of the population have their assault weapons and military grade equipment taken away.

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but it was written in the context of letting the people protect themselves from an excessive or totalitarian government. What's happening now is the modification of gun control laws in reaction to a massacre in a ******* elementary school. If you look at that, paired with the countless other mass shootings, and do not GENUINELY think that at least something needs to be done, then I don't know what's going on in your head.

All in all, I respect your opinion - after all it is the diversity of opinion that helps a true democracy flourish - but something needs to be done. If the regulations passed in '34 and '89 were truly effective by today's standards, we would not be seeing the sort of unfathomable and shockingly common violence there is today in the country.
#108 to #30 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
Nice to know. They medians in our land spoke all the time of assault weapons and that normal people in the USA get access to full automatic refiles.

(But i think you don't need more then ten round magazine to defend yourself, if you need more, you need ******* backup man)
#106 to #30 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
If you really think the NRA is interested in your freedom, I've got bad news for you.
(Hint: It's really about the money)
#81 to #30 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
last time i checked freedom wasn't determined by assault rifles
User avatar #73 to #30 - dafunkad (01/18/2013) [-]
"The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator" => 1 round per second...

no you can fire much faster than this with this kind of weapon pulling a trigger isn't really hard, after this i stopped reading,
User avatar #91 to #73 - fjmod (01/18/2013) [-]
I've got a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S with a bump fire stock that enables up to 1,100 rounds per minute. The exact same one that's in this vid. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7tzaYgp5g
#83 to #73 - departed has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #76 to #73 - durkadurka ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
With any kind of accuracy?

Good luck.
User avatar #79 to #76 - dafunkad (01/18/2013) [-]
same kind of accuracy than when you're using a fully automatic weapon. of course you have a much lower rate of fire than an automatic weapon, but much higher than 45 and 60 rounds per minute
User avatar #84 to #79 - departed (01/18/2013) [-]
The difference is, you can hold the grip easier and tighter using a fully automatic weapon. The aim is also very sensitive and spamming the trigger makes it very difficult to hold the weapon absolutely still.
#70 to #30 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
America does not even rate very high on Freedom rankings. Most 'free' countries have strict guns, it allows people to walk freely without being frisked and monitored.

Fear and guns
Fear and guns
#63 to #30 - flyslasher (01/18/2013) [-]
I've always known this distinction between different firearms and the law against automatic weapons and not semi-automatic weapons, but this presentation brings so much new knowledge so definite love!
User avatar #50 to #30 - iamthou ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
thanks, ive been using this to inform people of whats really being debated.
#36 to #30 - cakeisawesome **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#45 to #36 - noghri (01/18/2013) [-]
Thank you sir. I was about to go on a long tirade about how the 2nd Amendment is outdated and largely unnecessary but taking the time to read your post made me remember that arguing on the internet is ultimately a gigantic waste of time.
User avatar #51 to #45 - honeybiscuit (01/18/2013) [-]
I honestly would like to hear your logic surrounding how it's outdated and unecessary. I mean not to start and argument or anything, I am just genuinly curious. I also disagree entirely though. To some of us, keeping guns is really just a hobby. The problem will always be people. I mean, if guns are responsible for violence and killing, then pencils are responsible for spelling errors.
#104 to #51 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
I find it really dumb of you to compare guns to pencils.
The USA is such a weird country, you have it all, good economics, you're the center of the world in everything. But then you have this stupid ideas that date sooooooooo back, and amazingly you stand by them... It's like hearing that americans don't believe in evolution.. And just seeing how you are completely influenced by everything everyone says on tv. I get to see some daily shows here in europe and GOD! Stupid things are said by people who should have a higher education but don't even show it. And hearing that lot's of people don't believe in global warming... I find it really weird. You could have it all. A good health system, a good educational system, a fairer economic situation... But there are allways this past ghosts that appear
"ohhh its comunism we can't do that, even if it's good for the most needed people",
"oh we need guns in case i have a reason to shoot my neighbour if he ever says yellow instead of green",
"i don't trust the police to protect me, they are all ******* who do nothing, i need my gun",
"i don't trust our 300 year government i need something to protect myself from him in case someday he tries to give me free health care"

Well we can agree the gun love is cultural. It comes from the revolution, the civil war, the wild west, the mafia wars, and continues to this day. You simply love guns.
But saying guns ain't to blame for killings is stupid. If there are no firearms in a country there will be no gunshot victims in it. In europe it's so rare to hear about a gunshot incidents, in newyork it's like the daily basis.
So if they are forbidden, yes criminals can get them also. but much harder and at a much higher cost. I really find it hard to believe you don't agree with this. it's like, you have a whole continent proving this, you just don't see it because you don't want to. Sorry for my english. Mas caralho falei bem.
User avatar #140 to #104 - honeybiscuit (01/18/2013) [-]
I find it really dumb of you to completely ignore the logic behind the comparison. Stupid to compare it to pencils? Fine, go get a gun, set it on the table and wait for it to kill you. At the same time, also purchase a pencil, set it down next to some paper, and wait for it to mess up. **** it let them race each other. I didn't say a gun is as dangerous as a pencil, just that neither of them are responsible for killing, or writing mistakes respectively. I find it funny you decide to use New York to try and prove your point against me. New York has the MOST RESTRICTIVE gun laws in the ENTIRE COUNTRY. By yours and everyone elses logic, it should be the safest place to live. Not even ******* close.

Don't trust our cops to protect us? Average response time is 8 minutes. What can someone do in 8 minutes and get away. Pretty much whatever they want.
But I suppose if we ban guns there will be nothing left to kill someone with. Let's also get started on banning all blunt objects, all sharp objects, all writing utensils, all eating utensils, anything flammable, and hell cutting off our own limbs. Nobody is going to find an alternative to guns? Maybe we get rid of all guns and the country just decides. Oh well I was a law breaking cock sucker before, but now that guns are illegal I guess now would be a good time to start caring. People who would follow the law are now left defenseless. They'd have to confiscate all firearms in the country, even then they only know about the registered ones. Illegally obtained ones won't be any less illegal.

You say we could have good healthcare. But we can't have "good" universal healthcare. It's not going to happen. People liked to compare us to Canada when making that point. Well **** did nobody stop to think the population of Canada is LESS than California?

Things need to be done to make guns safer. Harder to get maybe. But a complete ban will work about as well as the prohibition did (it didnt work at all by the way).
#133 to #104 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
Word. My older brother was shot a few years ago because some ******* thug was able to steal a gun from his neighbor. That neighbor didn't report it because he didn't notice one gun missing from his, might I say, impressive collection. I've forgiven that thug and that neighbor. There just simply are people who are like that, there's really nothing anyone can do about it. However there are things people could do to 2nd Amendment.

If the gun policy here in US wasn't so ******* loose, I'd still have a brother.

User avatar #53 to #51 - blahness (01/18/2013) [-]
This is just my opinion on the matter. But this is the 21st century.
the 2nd amendment is to protect the "free state" and thus can be interpreted as people's power to fight back against the government should they turn totalitarian or something.
the papers were signed over 300 years ago, where there were still monarchies. To have a government go rogue on its country at this time is simply impossible. First of all, the government would have to convince a majority of congress/ every other political position that turning against the country is a good idea. Not just federal government, but state governments, municipal governments, you get the idea. And they're just not going to agree with it. Also, in order to turn against the country, you must have an army entirely yours to command. The people that join the army mostly join by freewill and want to protect their country, not take over it. Not only will challenging the freedom in the country cause massive uproar that nobody could possibly contain, it will receive possibly negative views from the rest of the world. So you have a civil war and the rest of the world fighting against you. No matter how you look at it, it's extremely risky, if not flat out impossible, to challenge the status quo.
User avatar #54 to #53 - honeybiscuit (01/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, alright I can agree that our own government turning on us, is probably(I do have to say probably) never going to happen in this day and age. But I'd also say, what if someone else takes over? I mean, we are the United States so chances of that are ( ******* )slim too. But if our government were to undergo a radical change perhaps as a result of a hostile takeover by a different governing body. . . we WOULD be protecting the "free state." It does SEEM grossly outdated, but then again what real harm does it cause to leave it alone too? Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I believe that is the logic behind the amendment as well. Maybe we could update it a little. But to be fair, I don't think it will ever be completely unecessary. I feel any laws in place or implemented in the future to help prevent gun related acts of violence, should honestly be more to help make what we have, more safe through awareness and proper handling, not restrictions and control. If someone wants to break the law, they're not going to be deterred by adding more laws. Either way, thanks for being reasonable, but you can't tell me you don't agree with me here, even a tiny bit. The amendment was ALWAYS a "what if."
#87 to #54 - anon (01/18/2013) [-]
It's the ease of access of weapons that increases the likely hood that someone will use one if they for instance are mentally disturbed or are not able to make rational choices in life. Social media and level of education of the person and their parents are also indicators of a propensity for criminal acts. Limiting the availability of weapons will decrease violent crime to a degree but its not the final step. Income is also a huge part of what determines the likely hood of criminal acts. Anyways I have to say visiting the U.S., Canada and Germany for extended periods of time. I really notice how jumpy and wary yanks are compared to Canucks or Germans. Its really a comfortable feeling knowing nobody around you would bother carrying a concealed weapon. I mean there are some places in Germany and Canada mind you where people do possess weapons even illegally however its a small portion of the population. Outside of the U.S.A. people don't generally glorify violence to the same degree either though. I mean its kind great if your a good boxer or martial artist where skill and cunning is involved in a sport like manner however getting kicks out of watching people abuse their children or their own dignity as a human being on reality television is another thing.
#46 to #45 - cakeisawesome **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)