Libfags. . Muzzle IT '' SAFE direction. Finger OFF the trigger. Safety ON. Less safe with guns than a six year old kid. Claims tn he an authority an gun safety
x
Click to expand

Comments(238):

[ 238 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - scottmc (01/25/2013) [-]
It costs four-hundred-thousand dollars to fire this weapon.... for twelve seconds.
#2 to #1 - Bobtheblob (01/25/2013) [-]
Them $200 bullets ain't so hot when they don't hit nothin', are they?
Them $200 bullets ain't so hot when they don't hit nothin', are they?
#6 to #2 - sprudlebass (01/25/2013) [-]
>heavy's face when
#23 - pickledpee (01/26/2013) [-]
A complete ban on guns wouldn't be effective, but a psychological and physical examination is needed. You can be completely blind and still own a gun if you can afford it.
A complete ban on guns wouldn't be effective, but a psychological and physical examination is needed. You can be completely blind and still own a gun if you can afford it.
User avatar #46 to #23 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
I am not afraid of someone who's been trained to use a gun safely and effectively. I'm afraid of a guy who hasn't been trained with one, has a mental problem, or both.
User avatar #27 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
I THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON FIREARMS ALTOGETHER AND USE MELEE WEAPONS!

Caps cause I am cool like that.
User avatar #59 to #27 - varrlegrimscythe (01/26/2013) [-]
You do that, I'll learn to melt peoples faces off with my mind.
#54 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
The gun is not the problem. It never was. The problem is that you can easily get one, even if you are mentally unstable or untrained.

The gun doesn't kill the person, it's only a tool. The killer is the one holding the gun with the malcontent/fear to pull the trigger.
User avatar #177 to #54 - dadukesta (01/26/2013) [-]
And several news studies have shown it's impossible to stop the off the record selling of guns because people sell them illegally in parking lots. I saw a big news report on it, this one guy was selling a barret 50 cal to complete strangers no questions asked.
#208 to #54 - Hiddendemon (01/26/2013) [-]
while i do agree with your point of view, as I own a couple hunting guns, i wouldn't care if assault weapons are banned, those are specifically made to kill people.
User avatar #61 to #54 - shaddz ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
unstable people can get hold of hammers pretty easily too, what's your point
User avatar #75 to #61 - generaljosh (01/26/2013) [-]
You can't mow down a crowd of people with a hammer
inb4 thor
User avatar #66 to #61 - TheMacDaddy (01/26/2013) [-]
and baseball bats, cars, and knifes. All used more in murders then guns
User avatar #178 to #66 - TheMather ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
More assaults, yes, but not murders.
www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9
If you look at that table, you'll see that firearms make for the murder weapon in just under two thirds of all homicides that take place in the US.
User avatar #226 to #178 - shaddz ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
yea thats the united states only because they can get hold of guns, look up rates for other countries that can't for a fair comparison of what it would be like without the guns.
User avatar #227 to #226 - TheMather ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Canada, seems to have very lenient gun laws:
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada - Rougly 1/3

Norway, very lenient gun laws for a European first-world nation;
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway - Roughly 1/10, though this varies wildly because of the low numbers.

Japan, stricy laws:
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan - 1/21.

The UK, very strict gun laws;
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom - Roughly 1/30.
User avatar #70 to #66 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
Also, you can make anything you can grab into a weapon, fyi.

Hammers, baseball bats, a garden hose, a chain, forks, fire pokers, your fists, ect.
User avatar #72 to #70 - gggman (01/26/2013) [-]
How many of them can hit multiple targets within a matter of seconds like a gun?
User avatar #131 to #66 - starzero ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
*than.

You have a good point.
User avatar #64 to #61 - jgd (01/26/2013) [-]
well if i wear to point a hammer at you and squeeze it i would look silly.
User avatar #65 to #61 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
That is my point.

The. Gun. Is. A. Tool. Just like a hammer.
#130 - alphajunk (01/26/2013) [-]
MFW reading this post and the stupid 			*********		 comments about banning guns and 			****
MFW reading this post and the stupid ********* comments about banning guns and ****
#152 to #130 - Kittehh (01/26/2013) [-]
< Almost everyone on these types of threads.

Me: *skip*

User avatar #105 - impaledsandwich (01/26/2013) [-]
God damn this is stupid. She isn't retardedly unsafe because she's a liberal, she's retardedly unsafe because she's a middle-aged woman who almost certainly has no training with guns. Political beliefs have nothing to do with gun skills or knowledge.
0
#108 to #105 - neonblackkitty has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #184 to #105 - popkornking (01/26/2013) [-]
People like to imagine that if one of many beliefs someone adheres to is against their own, that the entire ideology must be the root cause
User avatar #109 to #105 - neonblackkitty (01/26/2013) [-]
She has her own concealed weapons permit- meaning she qualified with a personal firearm, which required her to take a test on basic safety rules.
User avatar #113 to #109 - impaledsandwich (01/26/2013) [-]
I'll take your word for it. I honestly have no idea why I thought I should start an Internet argument at 10:30. My last sentence still stands, anyway; you can't say that all liberals are unsafe retards around guns.
User avatar #114 to #113 - neonblackkitty (01/26/2013) [-]
agreed. I have friends that claim to be liberal but do enjoy shooting and know a thing or two about guns.
User avatar #117 to #114 - impaledsandwich (01/26/2013) [-]
If it weren't for the title, I'd actually like this post. Anti-gun people should at least know how to deal with one so they don't sound like idiots.
User avatar #120 to #109 - thamuz (01/26/2013) [-]
She also has stated "She has seen many pictures of weapons and that makes her an authority on them"

That cunt wants to ban all guns on the AR/AK platform. So no more SKS,or anything that resembles the AR-15(yes,even your Ruger 22 kit would be banned).

The woman doesnt know what end makes the loud noise. And if she has a CCW then she would be limiting herself in her petty crusade against gun ownership.
User avatar #161 to #109 - eatherbreather (01/26/2013) [-]
Makes her a hypocrite am I right? She's all "the gun I choose to defend myself with is o.k. but not yours".
#116 to #109 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
Wait...Why does she have a concealed carry permit if she's trying to disarm everyone?...
User avatar #119 to #116 - neonblackkitty (01/26/2013) [-]
Because like most politicians she feels as if she is more important than us lowly citizens. Her safety and liberty is more important.
User avatar #158 - reican (01/26/2013) [-]
because if people disagree she could spray them down
User avatar #165 to #158 - malhaloc (01/26/2013) [-]
Then blame it on the gun! Its brilliant!
User avatar #167 to #165 - reican (01/26/2013) [-]
I know! and then her law passes
#175 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
how can u tell the safety is on or off in this picture?
#182 to #175 - Senior Bob (01/26/2013) [-]
enlarge. bolt actions as seen on the left have a flange or rocker safety, and when its pointed up it's engaged. the one on the right has a selector switch, and down means fire im pretty sure.
User avatar #191 to #182 - majormoron (01/26/2013) [-]
Correct, on an AK, when on safe, the safety catch actually blocks the slide, and as you can see it is below the slide, meaning its either on semi or auto
User avatar #207 to #182 - Jewssassin (01/26/2013) [-]
That bolt actions safety is actually the little nub on a stick right above the trigger, behind the bolt. Back is safe, forward is fire.
User avatar #213 to #207 - Senior Bob (01/26/2013) [-]
probably, i've only ever used larger caliber bolt actions.
User avatar #236 to #213 - Jewssassin (01/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, you're talking about the Mausers Safety style, which many large caliber bolt actions are based off of, including the 1903 Springfield.
User avatar #195 to #175 - PgFalcon ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
red dot means the gun is hot.
#176 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
liberals are stupid. they just appeared to be intelligent with many arguments but inside their skulls, they got nothing.
#188 to #176 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
Really? And conservatives aren't? Please shut the **** up. If you want to be bias towards and party don't speak it. Just keep it in your redneck mind please.
User avatar #200 to #188 - TheFixer (01/26/2013) [-]
he means the far left you pringus. just the same with the far right. where the "smarts" are is in the middle
User avatar #203 to #200 - TheFixer (01/26/2013) [-]
and no im not a conservative im a moderate. i think both sides have fair points i think everyone should own and know how to proporly use a gun and i think the rich should pay more on their taxes.
User avatar #216 to #203 - mistressluna (01/26/2013) [-]
But then they won't have enough money to hire wetbacks and then there will be riots.
User avatar #239 to #216 - TheFixer (01/27/2013) [-]
that made me smile you get a thumb. treat it with care.
User avatar #240 to #239 - mistressluna (01/27/2013) [-]
I'll cradle it closely.
User avatar #219 to #200 - gammajk ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Pretty sure "liberal" doesn't mean "far left".
+2
#171 - gingertank **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 - KayRed (01/26/2013) [-]
How about we bring logic to these arguments, on both sides...please?
User avatar #107 to #100 - neonblackkitty (01/26/2013) [-]
because the anti-gun agenda is not supported by logic. it flies in the face of all logical things.
FACT: crime has been steadily declining (50% decrease) over the past 25 years. (source: www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)
FACT: over 84 MILLION Gun Owners committed no crimes yesterday (source: The Small Arms Survey in 2007 by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva estimated 270 million firearms in the US. )
FACT: DiFi (as she is know to her constituents) holds her own concealed weapons permit, carries daily and has a detail of 12 ARMED security guards. (source: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104)
User avatar #162 to #107 - stripey (01/26/2013) [-]
no, you are wrong. Guns that look scary should be banned. I know because the term they use is "assault rifle" and assault means to kill someone.
User avatar #183 to #162 - SonofChuck (01/26/2013) [-]
Okay that made me laugh.
#52 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
while i agree with your point I hate you assholes who say libfags like your so much better than everyone else just because you have a different opinion,
User avatar #67 - tolazytomakename (01/26/2013) [-]
Don't use the term Libfags in a political argument. It completely eliminates any credibility from your argument and makes you look like you think your opinion is the only opinion. People have different opinions and America was created on compromise.

tl;dr Stop looking like an ignorant redneck and start compromising with other people.
User avatar #82 to #67 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Though I kind of hate people who say "libfags" or "teabillies" and other such phrases, compromise is for lawmakers who actually need to get stuff done. I don't see any reason for me, a private citizen, to make concessions to people I think are wrong.
#99 to #67 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
>implying the word conservatard doesn't exist, stop acting like a victim and take insult, libfag
User avatar #85 - mookiez (01/26/2013) [-]
My dad taught us gun safety since day one. Most 6 year olds are very safe with guns, It just depends on the parents.
#190 - shutes (01/26/2013) [-]
You know when I am pissed at society and the direction America is heading I go on Funnyjunk and post junk too, op.   
   
But, not really.
You know when I am pissed at society and the direction America is heading I go on Funnyjunk and post junk too, op.

But, not really.
User avatar #129 - anonymouzx (01/26/2013) [-]
Where is the safety?
User avatar #148 to #129 - smittdawg (01/26/2013) [-]
You would be safe in my arms
User avatar #135 - Dudedog (01/26/2013) [-]
Seriously I don't understand what the problem is here. Is it really that bad if an assault weapons ban is reinstated? What good use do civilians have with military designed weapons that were designed to kill other people? I understand it's a right that Americans hold dearly, but come on I'm sure you can deal without assault rifles. I'm sure the deer you're hunting only needs one bullet. Besides, we take the 2nd Amendment out of context anyway. That amendment was written at a time when it was necessary for the people to arm themselves for literal dangers like indian raids, looters, and vagabonds. Not to mention 1700s America wasn't very urban or industrialized. Times change and so should how we interpret aged documents.
#155 to #135 - onetufftoaster (01/26/2013) [-]
Because man, they are pretty ****** cool lol. And i dont think we should change anything because the men who wrote everything in the Bill of Rights sacrificed a lot to get to that point. Just because there are some horrible people, should everyone suffer? Just because people protest and make fun of gays or talk about how the men who fight for our country are all bad people. Should we do away with the first amendment and punish everyone? I know ill get thumbed down but just consider it man. Not everyone with Assault rifles are insane.
#141 to #135 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
dude, the 2nd amendment was designed to protect citizens from the government itself. When there were still colonies, armed British soldiers could enter a colonial's house at any time and force them to basically do whatever the soldiers wanted. We have the second amendment so that if a soldier, or FBI agent, or whatever, came into our house and started bossing us around, we can legitimately tell them to **** off
User avatar #221 to #141 - gammajk ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Not really. If a government official tells you to do something, guess how fast your ass will be in prison if you pull a ******* gun on them because you perceive it as "MUH FREEDUMZ R BEIN INFRINJED"
User avatar #140 to #135 - stripey (01/26/2013) [-]
the thing about the "assault weapons" ban is that it is a joke used to frighten people into losing their freedom. Its all about controlling things that don't need to be controlled. i feel like I should stop spamming this link everywhere, but please read this to get an idea of what I mean-
www.assaultweapon.info/?fb_action_ids=416521765093181&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%22416521765093181%22%3A306532132800889%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22416521765093181%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]

Assault rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun, but the AR-15 happens to be one of the most popular, and to the uneducated looks scary. There are many other things I can bring to the table here, but honestly I don't really like politics on FunnyJunk.
User avatar #230 to #140 - Dudedog (01/26/2013) [-]
I did enjoy learning something new about assault weapons; however I still by my statement. They should be banned. America is full of uneducated people, more so than me. These people see assault weapons as the ONLY cause of mass shootings. That's not true at all, yet they persist that they need to be banned. To make them happy, why not ban them? They will shut up and you still have a wide variety of guns. The only way you gun enthusiasts can keep their "assault" rifles is to educate America. You and I both know no one is going to be able to do that. No one cares about the truth, yet. This country loves giving their people a sense of false security. quite honestly a ban shouldn't be in place now that I know they are just as lethal as hunting rifles, but really I want stupid people to shut up.
User avatar #231 to #230 - stripey (01/26/2013) [-]
thank you very much for keeping an open opinion, but I do very much disagree with you once again. You shouldn't ever give up your personal freedoms just to get stupid people to shut up. That is an awful idea. The media (newspapers, etc) was designed to educate people without any bias. It fails to do that today; that is why sensationalist headlines create uneducated voters. The right to bear arms should not be infringed to shut someone up. "Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both," Benjamin Franklin.
User avatar #244 to #231 - Dudedog (01/27/2013) [-]
What do you want to happen then?
User avatar #245 to #244 - stripey (01/28/2013) [-]
I want people to wise up and not allow their rights to be taken away. People are so up in arms about the school shooting that they lose all of their common sense. Honestly, I think the only way to protect the children is to arm the teachers. Give all teachers a right to keep a government approved firearm in a safe, and improve our mental health system. I think that once you are proved sane and pass a basic test, then you should have access to guns. What we really need to focus on is getting the crazies mental help and upholding the constitution that politicians swear to uphold.
User avatar #246 to #245 - Dudedog (01/28/2013) [-]
Well let's be honest, mental illness and violent bursts of rage are a touchy subject. A perfectly sane person that went through the tests and gained the ability to have a gun can one day just snap. It's not just the "crazies" that you think are doing the crimes. I don't really agree that we should be arming teachers. Now having a bigger police presence I can understand.
User avatar #247 to #246 - stripey (01/28/2013) [-]
but what can the police do? If someone were to attack a school the police cannot prevent deaths. An armed society is a polite society - Robert A. Heinlein. The people are meant to defend themselves. If everyone were to have a pistol on them, how far do you think a crazy guy would get? This is why a "gun free" zone is a terrible idea. Criminals don't follow the rules.
User avatar #248 to #247 - Dudedog (01/28/2013) [-]
The police can do the same thing the armed teachers can, however, its actually their job to do so.
User avatar #249 to #248 - stripey (01/28/2013) [-]
but they aren't in the schools. There isn't a police officer in every classroom.

also, may I ask why not arm teachers?
User avatar #250 to #249 - Dudedog (01/28/2013) [-]
Well as I said before any normal "sane" person can snap and go on a shooting spree. Arming a whole bunch of teachers just doesn't sound like a good idea. What kind of environment will it create where kids will grow up know there is a gun in the teacher's desk instead of a stapler. I don't want to live in that world nor do I want my children to. Referring back to the cops, there still is an armed presence in the school. While not in the classroom exactly , they will be within the building. In my high school, there is a cop with a gun there at all times. Perhaps beef and that up and mandate that nation wide will be a good compromise for both sides?
User avatar #251 to #250 - stripey (01/29/2013) [-]
I see what you mean about the sane person snapping and going on a shooting spree, but I think that if everyone had a gun to protect themselves and if we improved mental health treatment then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, beefing up the armed presence in schools is going to cost huge amounts for a nation in debt. Accoriding to this article, (stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/27/tragic-but-rare-odds-of-dying-in-a-school-shooting-as-in-chardon-at-least-one-in-a-million/) the chances of a student dyeing in a school shooting are no greater than one in a million. You want to save lives? there are a million better things to spend the money on. Also, can you please explain why you don't want guns in the class room? Schools in the south are already doing it with no problems.
User avatar #252 to #251 - Dudedog (01/29/2013) [-]
Alright if there is a such a small chance of dying in a school shooting, then why bring guns in at all? the link doesn't work by the way. I don't want guns in schools because, in general, schools are meant for education. As society evolves, education evolves, thus school evolves. School environments change, but now if you throw guns into the mix, it will become a warzone. A semblance of safety muddled by the fact that they are carrying weapons designed to kill people. Why would you want to live in a world where everyone carries a weapon designed solely to kill? I agree we must improve mental health treatment, we have to find the source and eradicate the source. Once we destroy the cause, we destroy the effects. It is like killing a weed: you need to kill the roots in order to kill the plant. This, to me, seems like a better solution than just cutting the top part of a problematic plant and expecting it to go away.
User avatar #253 to #252 - stripey (01/29/2013) [-]
stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/27/tragic-but-rare-odds-of-dying-in-a-school-shooting-as-in-chardon-at-least-one-in-a-million/

the link decided to include the parentheses. I think we see firearms very differently from each other. To me, it's a sport as well as self defense; much like archery, I do competitive shooting in the summer with my dad. With proper education and respect, guns are not dangerous. It's people using them to kill other humans that makes them dangerous. For this reason, I fail to see how having guns in schools would create a war zone, especially since according to an MSNBC article from three years ago there are six million people already carrying concealed firearms all throughout the U.S. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/ Carrying a pistol around isn't so "rednecks" can put 10 bullets on a roadside deer, its to protect themselves and the people around them. I do solemnly believe that if everyone had a weapon of their own at all times, crime would go down. Would you want to rob a store? Start a school shooting perhaps, then try to deal with the 200 law abiding teachers with pistols to match yours? I hope my links are in order this time haha.
User avatar #179 to #135 - SonofChuck (01/26/2013) [-]
The problem here is that the right to bear arms is being infringed upon, a right that is guaranteed by the United States Constitution which is SUPPOSED to be the supreme law of the land. It states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary tot he security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So you see these weapons aren't for hunting like you said they are there so we can maintain our freedom against a tyranny should it ever come to it.
#189 to #179 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
The intention of the second amendment was to keep American civilians safe in the event of a British invasion (think War of 1812). It was also intended for them to be trained as a militia. Militiamen were not to keep their combat weapons on hand, but in a communal armory, in case of an attack on the nation. Besides that, small firearms or hunting weapons were fine, but that was it. Instead, right wing gun-nuts extort the original context of this, just like the wbc extorts the bible. That is NOT what the second amendment was for, and those arguing for a lack of gun control are, frankly, borderline idiotic.
User avatar #206 to #189 - SonofChuck (01/26/2013) [-]
What you say is true but like the man above me said, times do change. It says that the it is the right of the people (a.k.a us) to keep and bear arms which could and has been interpreted by the United State Supreme court to mean that it is within our individual rights to posses a firearm which was made official in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. It's because of interpretations like this that allowed the Constitution and the rights it guarantees to be applied throughout our countries history otherwise it would have been out of date centuries ago. For example if we never interpreted the Constitution in any way except for strictly what the founding fathers may have felt was relevant at their time then films and video games would never have been protected under the First Amendment.
User avatar #229 to #206 - Dudedog (01/26/2013) [-]
We have the National Guard to do what a colonial militia would do in their time. The people don't really need guns the same way they needed them for invasion; however, I do agree that we should be armed for tyranny. I'm not for banning all guns and the government should fear us rather than the other way around. Sadly, we fear the government more and think they are taking away our rights. If it really want a serious infrigement that amercians can't live without, why not prove a point and use your "right" to fight against "tyranny" and tell the government to **** off. People must realize that's ridiculous and we can do without assault rifles. We can still fight of tyranny if it arises with the other firearms available
User avatar #237 to #229 - SonofChuck (01/27/2013) [-]
There are tons of people who are against the ban of assault weapons so it's not like they're not using their right to fight against tyranny, the problem is that the ban of assault weapons has a surprisingly strong amount of support, mostly due to the massacres of recent years. While I'm sure the supporters mean well, I feel that they are misguided by fear and a lack of knowledge. As for the National Guard, yes they're state funded but when deployed for war they work for the federal government. Also take into consideration that if in the event of a civil war if your state were to side with the federal government you would be facing your own state militia. Now personally if that were to happen to me I'd leave the state but in the event that I may have to fight them I'd want a rifle that hold a little more than a paltry ten rounds.
#172 - UnoSkullmanx (01/26/2013) [-]
DEMtards. Democrats are not Liberals. That misconception is why I hate calling myself a Liberal. I keep getting associated with those Democrat retards. Liberals are for individual freedom. That includes guns.
User avatar #173 to #172 - galkawhm ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
For years, people have been painting liberal as a dirty word. most idiots think it is without knowing the actual definition.
#174 to #172 - UnoSkullmanx (01/26/2013) [-]
And watch as I get a typhoon of red thumbs because people don't actually understand what I'm trying to say.

Any law that decreases individual freedom (besides murder, etc., obviously) isn't a Liberal law.
#186 to #174 - vparrish (01/26/2013) [-]
You're thinking Libertarian, not liberal. Liberal just means the opposite of conservative.
#192 to #186 - UnoSkullmanx (01/26/2013) [-]
Libertarianism doesn't mean anything by itself. If the constitution supported slavery, then you would have to support slavery in order to be libertarian. So no, I'm not thinking libertarian.

The more accurate term is "Classic Liberal."

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy" -wikipedia

Maybe I used the wrong term, but anyway, I support gun rights, and am at the same time a Liberal.
#196 to #192 - vparrish (01/26/2013) [-]
libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

www.lp.org/faq
User avatar #202 to #174 - TheFixer (01/26/2013) [-]
liberals are the far left. democrats are the entire left. therefore all liberals are democrats but not all democrats are liberals.
#204 to #202 - UnoSkullmanx (01/26/2013) [-]
No, wrong, the left side is CALLED the Liberal side. Just like the right side is also called the conservative side. Democrats and republicans occupy both sides of the spectrum in some aspects. Dems are, in some ways, conservative, and vice versa.
User avatar #210 to #204 - TheFixer (01/26/2013) [-]
what we need.
smaller goverment (that way we can get **** done instead of everytime something goes to congress have it filibustered).

every citizen to own and know how to use a gun (that will eliminate crime).

the 1% to pay more in taxes instead of the poor and middle class having to burden themselves with 3 or more jobs to make ends meat.
User avatar #220 to #210 - gammajk ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
>smaller government
No, we need better government.

>every citizen to own and know how to use a gun
No, it won't eliminate crime, it will result in more dead people. Dead criminals does not mean that there isn't still a problem.

>taxes
Sure.
User avatar #238 to #220 - TheFixer (01/27/2013) [-]
yeah it will eliminate crime. lets look at the current situation. not many people have guns and we have a lot of crime because criminals know this fact. now say we reverse this. everyone has a gun, criminals know this, criminals will be less likely to commit crimes with everyone packing. lets look as some states with heavy gun control laws. crime is running rampant. now look at states with lax gun laws crime is significantly lower if not missing all together. furthermore look at mexico total gun ban yet im pretty sure all the criminals have guns and do what they want with little to no reprocussion for those actions.
User avatar #241 to #238 - gammajk ONLINE (01/27/2013) [-]
Have you considered that it might just be a problem with society? Example - in Canada, gun crime is MUCH lower, but people typically don't walk around carrying weapons.
People are going to do crime regardless of whether or not non-criminals have guns.
User avatar #242 to #241 - TheFixer (01/27/2013) [-]
but they will be less inclined to do so knowing that they will get shot if they try anything.
User avatar #5 - maidenmk (01/25/2013) [-]
There is no way to argue that 'guns and death' are the something to defend.
#28 to #5 - chazzxz (01/26/2013) [-]
The only remotely valid anti-gun argument is the fact that you can commit acts of terrorism on a larger scale with guns.
#9 to #5 - anon (01/25/2013) [-]
How the **** did you think people went on killing sprees before there were guns?
God damn, the ignorance of some people.
#7 to #5 - wormman (01/25/2013) [-]
guns are nothing but tools. its what people decide to do with them that matters. people fear guns more then any of the other weapons that our species has created because they are just easier to use. MFW your comment.
User avatar #31 to #7 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, but think of it this way; take away a man's tools and he can't do the job

Sure you can kill people without guns, but guns sure as hell are more effective at killing than most household objects.
User avatar #187 to #31 - wormman (01/26/2013) [-]
depends on the person using them.
User avatar #35 to #31 - mcroflskates (01/26/2013) [-]
Guns aren't a household object, so why would someone choose a lamp to kill someone if they don't have a gun? They'll just go out and buy another weapon.
Like the guy in Wyoming who killed people with a bow and arrow.
Not to mention that criminals get guns (illegally) now, so what will making them illegal do?...
User avatar #39 to #35 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
realistically though, how is a gun going to help the average person against a criminal?
For example; say you were a store clerk and someone pulled a gun on you trying to rob you. You know you have a gun nearby, do you reach for it in hopes that you can get off a shot first?
the answer is no, your life is worth more than whatever is in the cash register.

This isn't the wild west where you had to defend your town against bandits who wouldn't stop pillaging the town unless you defended yourself.
-18
#15 - originalop has deleted their comment [-]
-5
#16 to #15 - originalop has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47 to #16 - diegrammernazis (01/26/2013) [-]
1st: how would you contact the police.
2nd: they would just get guns off of the black market, possibly militarized versions.
#19 to #16 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
Because obviously criminals follow gun laws.

These big guys sure did stop a lot at Sandy Hook...
User avatar #25 to #16 - alalalalal (01/26/2013) [-]
Lol at "They can stop and outburst in a giffy..." Thank god that they stopped Columbine and Conecticut shootings
User avatar #40 to #25 - ichbintarded (01/26/2013) [-]
No one is allowed to have a gun in those areas. Therefore only criminals and police would have guns. Fix yourself before you comment, you're kinda tore up from the floor up right now.
-5
#18 to #15 - originalop has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #20 to #18 - CallMeCrisco (01/26/2013) [-]
Why do we need weapons? See: history
0
#234 to #20 - originalop has deleted their comment [-]
#30 to #18 - lifeisahighway (01/26/2013) [-]
More people die every year from blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc) than die from guns.
User avatar #24 to #18 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Walking around with swords, axes and spears sound pretty cool to me.
#33 to #15 - ofc (01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#217 to #15 - krispybananaz (01/26/2013) [-]
m14 ebr SO goddamned easy to conceal, holy **** right. your so vauge with that, people conceal knives all the time, same with guns. get the **** over it
-1
#232 to #217 - originalop has deleted their comment [-]
0
#233 to #93 - originalop has deleted their comment [-]
#29 to #15 - lifeisahighway (01/26/2013) [-]
More people are killed with bats and clubs every year than are killed with guns. Only 2% of gun deaths result from rifles of any kind. All but one mass shooting since Colombine has taken place where guns are banned (movie theatre, school, etc). Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States also has some of the highest murder rates. Facts are FUN!!!
User avatar #32 to #29 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Please cite a source next time
#36 to #32 - lifeisahighway (01/26/2013) [-]
washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/ clubs
You need to login to view this link mass shooting
And if you don't already know Chicago is violent, you should not be allowed to have access to a computer.
That literally took 20 seconds, you can look it up yourself next time.
User avatar #44 to #36 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Preferably statistics and hard data, not articles which are obviously written by people for one side or the other.
#45 to #44 - lifeisahighway (01/26/2013) [-]
Look, if you're going to be close minded about the actual facts, we cannot have a civil debate. You can look it up yourself, and until you prove otherwise (impossible because it is true), the information I stated should be regarded as true. Did you not read about those things on npr or msnbc?
0
#136 to #45 - ronniedrew has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #15 - reconred (01/26/2013) [-]
Yes, lets ignore the 6 million dead Jews that couldn't defend themselves. Alright, what about Stalin? No? Okay what about this, in Britain there was 59 firearm homicides, compared to the United States of America's aprox 8,000 homicides however 600 of them were justifiable homicides by police officers and self-defense, pretty low number of justified homicides to have the highest gun ownership in the world right? I have an explanation for this: Say you're walking down the street and somebody jumps out of a corner with a knife and says 'Give me your money!' you pull out a firearm, this man now frightened was not expecting resistance and runs away. Therefor, theoretically anyway, the crime goes unreported to the police, does this make sense to you?

Alright now, lets try this out seeing as Britain has a population of about 65 million people versus America's 314 million people, yes, Britain would have a much lower gun homicide rate, but you say '59 versus 7,400' well look at this:

per-100,000 people there is aprox; 2,000 violent crimes in Britain, Seems like a fair number right? Well across the pond, here in America there are aprox 446 violent crimes per-100,000 people. Woah, let's look at this, we have ALOT of gun homicides compared too Britain but a MUCH lower VC rate. Well obviously in a place where it is easy to get a firearm there is going to be more firearm related deaths, but less stabbings and beatings when compared to Britain. Because in Britain criminals know that the most their victim is going to have to defend themselves is a knife, so Criminals are going to take advantage over this, but over here they are going to say (If they're smart) 'This man may have a gun, I don't want to mess with him!' And for this reason Britain is rank one of the most dangerous nations by the EU.

And this is why I say, God Bless the United States of America and long live the Constitution and thee Republic.
#77 to #26 - upunkpunk (01/26/2013) [-]
i love you
i love you
User avatar #86 to #77 - reconred (01/26/2013) [-]
I love you too.
User avatar #97 to #26 - goldenleaf (01/26/2013) [-]
this is the best thing on our constitution that I've ever read.
#142 to #26 - manter (01/26/2013) [-]
You, sir, are a Hero.
You, sir, are a Hero.
#138 to #26 - ronniedrew (01/26/2013) [-]
Marry me
Marry me
User avatar #34 to #26 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
If you pull a gun on a man robbing you, you are a ******* moron
User avatar #38 to #34 - ichbintarded (01/26/2013) [-]
Please explain how pulling a weapon on somebody who is already trying to take what is yours through violent means is stupid. I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to hear your justification.
User avatar #41 to #38 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Because the robber would most likely shoot you if you did, and it would all have been for your phone and whatever you had in your wallet. Maybe if you already gave the robber everything you had and he still wouldn't give up it would be a last way out.
User avatar #43 to #41 - ichbintarded (01/26/2013) [-]
Most robbery take place by amateurs with a knife. If you've been trained, or even just taken a psychology class you can tell a person who is trying to frighten you to doing what you want. When you have someone who is trained in firearms they can pull while making it look like they're going for their wallet. It's smart if you know what your doing, but I believe that no one should have a gun they haven't practiced with. Also known as the person in the picture who has obviously never practiced with a firearm in her life. Or she's simply to stupid to live. Either way it all comes down to the fact that it's only stupid if you don't know what you're doing.
User avatar #90 to #34 - defender (01/26/2013) [-]
now we know who to rob
#37 to #34 - lifeisahighway (01/26/2013) [-]
How so?
User avatar #42 to #37 - mehturtlesareok ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
see comment above
User avatar #49 to #34 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
Technically, you're only allowed to have a gun if you're in a state militia, not just because 'it's your god-given right to'. Then that amendment is ignored so that every jag-off and his mother can get a gun, dispite training and mental capacity.
User avatar #58 to #49 - MrPadre ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
But the Supreme Court made a decision in 2010 (5 to 4) that owning a gun is one of our fundamental rights. There is no technicality about it

Source:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134. html
#60 to #58 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
Well shut my mouth.

So now it's every psychopath and sociopath's fundamental right to have a gun now?
User avatar #144 to #60 - Zarke (01/26/2013) [-]
Yep, and it's every honest and good person's right to point a gun right back at them.
User avatar #62 to #60 - MrPadre ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
No, remember, certain things can take away your rights. Having commited felonies is one for example. Also, direct quote from the article: "The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an 'avalanche' of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation."
User avatar #69 to #62 - taintedangel (01/26/2013) [-]
I understand that, just kinda making a scary statement/unfunny joke there.

It's just that the guideline for who can own a gun tend to get blurred so anyone can get a gun so it doesn't piss anyone off and that people can't claim "They are taking my God-given right away".
User avatar #83 to #49 - reconred (01/26/2013) [-]
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Really? Because this piece of paper seems to say otherwise. Seriously, did you even read the 2A?
[ 238 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)