Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - joekooldash (01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile, under the Obama magical fairy princessistration...
User avatar #124 to #7 - joekooldash (01/30/2013) [-]
ok, i want to get something straight, the obama gun law wants to get rid of military and police grade weapons, but this would compromise our national security. the world views america as a bunch of gun toting loons, and thats the way we like it. you dont see any foreign nations attempting to invade our soil anytime soon huh? also automatic weapons are legal in some states with a class 3 weapons license.
User avatar #52 to #7 - whycanticaps (01/30/2013) [-]
magical fairy princessistration*
User avatar #54 to #52 - whycanticaps (01/30/2013) [-]

stupid word filters. I thought I was gonna be a smartass, but noooooo, that backfired on me. good one addy, good one
User avatar #120 to #54 - opiethepug (01/30/2013) [-]
The Obama magical fairy princessistration?

Testing: magical fairy princess
#14 to #7 - hanabro (01/30/2013) [-]
Obama doesn't want to get rid of pistols. Or shotguns, or hunting rifles. Just military-grade assault weapons that no civilian has any business owning anyway.
#76 to #14 - supermegasherman (01/30/2013) [-]
"assault weapons"

you know its funny because my mini 14 with the plastic stock is considered an "assault weapon" but with the wooden stock its not. man how intelligent is that? that is the smartest law ever.
User avatar #75 to #14 - trollnot (01/30/2013) [-]
> military assault weapon
Dat use of buzzwords

What the **** do you think we are talking about here? Full-autos? They have been banned since 1986 you *******


You do know this ban would make an ar-15 illegal which fires a 223 round but the ruger mini 14 ranch rifle in semi-auto, same caliber and magazine size it would not? Tell me how this plan with stop gun violence,

You can sit here and play arm-chair activist all you want I actually went to my capital to march for my rights. Quit ******** on the constitution. I was at the capital the day they Gun-grabbers marched to show their support for the ban, And I can tell you that you people are not the majority.

In-fact you can go the CNN's website right now, They have started producing Pro-gun articles because of how bad their ratings dropped after that fat-jawed idiot Piers Morgan started his holy crusade by standing on the corpses of children to promote his agenda.

You are right in only one respect. NOW is the time to act, BUT with our "BRAINS" not our feelings. hundreds of children die each day in america because of handgun crimes.


No you can track down gun violence in america by city you can even Pinpoint it to neighborhoods. WHAT we need to do is put wealth into these neighborhoods, and increase education in these places. For mass shooters we need to fix mental health we also need to stop them from glorifying these mass shooters in the media like there some ******* war god.

SO ******* what? cost to much do you realize how many people you will put out of a job by banning these rifles? Millions of **** sake. And saying things like "Our children shouldn't be safe because it cost to much shouldn't be a ******* answer. You should be ashamed for even using that god damn picture. Think with your ******* brain not your feelings.
#60 to #14 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
no he wants to get rid of weapons that look like assault rifles. fully automatic weapons are already banned ******* retard.
User avatar #66 to #60 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
You know, people like you make it so much ******* harder for people like me to defend my point. You can make a goddamn argument without being such a giant douche bag and insulting the other person. It undermines your argument and mine. Read below on how to actually have a goddamn discussion about this instead of stomping your feet and resorting to grade school insults. Grow the hell up if you want to be taken seriously.
User avatar #91 to #66 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
#56 to #14 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
What ******* fantasy universe are you living in?! Miltary grade weapons have been illegal to own for decades. Semi-automatic weapons fire ONE shot with each pull of the trigger and are far from "military grade". Find me a military that issues rifles which are limited to semi-automatic only. You're a ******* moron.
User avatar #42 to #14 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I am so stupidly sick of this fallacy. No civilian can get ahold of a military-grade anything. The term "assault weapon", as currently defined in law, is basically any gun that looks "military like". It is a made up term that is not actually used in the gun world, and politicians arbitrarily used it to define semi-automatic weapons with 'scary features', like fold-able stocks and pistol grips. What you people seem to think is going to be banned are weapons like the M16 and the M4, assault rifles that have fully automatic and burst fire capability that can mow people down. What they are actually TRYING to ban are weapons like the AR15, which is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. It just looks more military like. You can read all about the damn thing here.


Please, educate yourself about what is going on before saying such things.
User avatar #88 to #42 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
The AR-15 was made for the US military, it is a military grade weapon. US citizens have no business what so ever owning a gun like this.
Yes the civilian sold rifle is semi automatic, but that doesn't really make it any less dangerous.
Most people who own them won't be using them to shoot targets or hunt, most will have them for "personal defence", but if you're able to carry one of these then someone who wants to do you harm can also own one.
Not to mention the fact that you won't be given the opportunity to use it.
User avatar #319 to #88 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
The AR-15 was originally designed for military use (as the M16), until the weapon was later sold to Colt in 1963, were it was redesigned from the M16 weapon system to the current civilian firearm you have now. The AR-15 in its current incarnation was not made for the military, it was designed with civilians in mind.
#184 to #88 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
I know several people who own an AR-15 they all use them for hunting..
User avatar #209 to #184 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
So do I, but of the 2.5+ million of them owned in the states probably less that 1% are used for hunting.
User avatar #92 to #88 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
You can't carry a rifle in public.
User avatar #101 to #92 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
Exactly, which is why having one as a personal defence weapon is ridiculous.
Inside your own home you'd be better with a handgun than a rifle.
User avatar #116 to #101 - sketchE (01/30/2013) [-]
id be more worried about the guy breaking into my house with a shotgun than the guy walking down the street with a knife.
User avatar #134 to #116 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
If someone broke into my home with a shotgun I'd much prefer to neutralise them with a handgun. A Snubnosed revolver for example
And handguns aren't being banned.
User avatar #231 to #134 - sketchE (01/30/2013) [-]
which is strange because assault weapons only account for two percent of all gun crime. but think about it this way. the average person isnt going to be trained with a gun.i dont agree with that, i think all gun owners should have some form of safety training, but thats the reality of it. they may need more than six bullets. what if the guys on drugs? police are trained two to the chest one to the head but the average citizen isnt.

now lets get down to the real reason gun owners dont want them taken away. theyre fun as hell to shoot. go to an unmanned range set up random **** to shoot at and go crazy. its a blast.

i have no problem with better control of whos buying them. you want psychological tests first? fine. you want a gun license? fine. you want safety courses before being allowed? i will vote for that bill and sign up. just dont take away the fun guns that kill the smallest percent.

the issue is the current ban isnt trying to reduce gun violence. whens the last time you saw an NRA member go on a shooting spree? sure people that are trained with guns kill people. not too long ago a pro wrestler killed his entire family with his bare hands then killed himself. we gonna start cutting people arms off the moment they learn how to kill with them?

guns make killing a lot of people quickly easier. got it but ever notice where these mass shootings are? schools theaters, you know places where its illegal to have guns. yet we dont have one trained person with a gun to protect these places. courts have armed personel why cant schools?

its at this point i realise i went into a very long winded rant and am stopping now
User avatar #106 to #101 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Call me paranoid but I have a rifle and a set of riot gear (ballistic vest, leggings, sleeves, helmet, gas mask, shield, etc) in case of a large scale riot or invasion on U.S. soil, I hope that neither of those will ever happen but just in case it's good to be prepared. If it's gonna be a choice of me or them it's gonna sure as hell be them if I can help it. (I have three magazines of rubber bullets for the riot scenario and three magazines of fmj's for the invasion one).
#43 to #42 - Whytemane ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Uh... ******** .Give me just a moment and I'll have you to a link of people firing ******* CANNONS.
#45 to #43 - Whytemane ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Bam. https://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

If that's not military grade weapons, what the **** are you on?
User avatar #47 to #45 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
All the weapons featured in that video were created and manufactured before 1986, when the machine gun ban was enacted. Current legislation can not (and will not) touch them do to grandfather law. They existed before the legislation was passed, and are freely in civilian circulation. Further more, they are heavily regulated, requiring extensive, EXTENSIVE background checks and several government permits to own. Most of them are in incredible disrepair due to being nearly thirty years old.
#48 to #47 - Whytemane ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
....You really only see what you want to see don't you? "Incredible Disrepair?" Dude. I guarantee those dudes treat those guns like babies. If it was in "incredible disrepair" they'd be dangerous to fire, would likely look like trash, and likely would not be allowed to fire on the range. ALSO, how the **** do you think FPS Russia gets his weapons? Those are CURRENT MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. And I guarantee you NONE of them are owned by the military, they're privately owned. Know your **** about guns before you make stupid comments you ignorant twat.
User avatar #49 to #48 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
No gun in that video is in common use by the modern day military. You can look them all up, individually, yourself. The closest thing to a modern gun in that video was what I believe to be a civilian variant Barret .50 cal Anti-Material rifle (and I could be vastly wrong on that one). You can not get current military technology for private use, it is against the law. No weapon present at that shoot was made after 1986, and the assault weapon ban will not affect any weapon present there. You can feel free to look up the federal statues on the subject yourself, and feel free to contact FPSRussia on the subject. I am well aware of who he is, and I know all the loopholes he has to go through to get his footage. It isn't pretty, and he is an incredibly lucky individual to get to do the things that he does.
User avatar #50 to #49 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Let me correct myself. No fully automatic weapon or artillery piece present in that shoot was made after 1986. The sniper rifles (and anti-material rifles) are a different matter, and not subject to the discussion regardless because the assault weapon ban doesn't address them.
User avatar #51 to #50 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I do not know the laws regarding sniper rifles or anti-material rifles, don't ask me. This is a discussion about fully automatic machine guns, which, again, are illegal if manufactured past 1986 and do not enter civilian hands under any circumstances. There is only one loophole I can possibly think of, and even then I think it'd be illegal. That would be someone retiring from the military, having the proper permits for machine gun weaponry under government statutes, and taking their service weapon home with them (which is possible for a fee).
User avatar #93 to #51 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
The .50 cal Barrett the military uses IS available for civilian purchase and is legal to own:
http://ww w.barrett. net/firearms/m107a1 The most up-to-date one starts at about 12,000$
#44 to #43 - Whytemane has deleted their comment [-]
#39 to #14 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
2nd amendment was so that we may protect ourselves from the government becoming too large (which they already have) we need assault weapons.
#33 to #14 - brettd (01/30/2013) [-]
I call ******** on that one. He wants to get rid of all semi-automatic weaponry, which would include pistols and hunting rifles. Not to mention the limit on magazine clips.
#32 to #14 - hoodedmetal (01/30/2013) [-]
The AWB (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) defines Assault Weapons in 3 categories, Pistols, Shotguns, and Rifles and that is one of the acts that's in the air at the moment. so He is wanting to ban Pistols, Shotguns, Civilian Semi Auto Version of Military Rifles (And the Military Version obviously ) and their sale but i can own one legally afterwards, just not sell or give away without some red tape. and their business to own them is the Second Amendment but ill let another person argue that.

User avatar #19 to #14 - diegrammernazis (01/30/2013) [-]
but the current jurisdiction on what is a military assault rifle is any gun that looks scary. (+ the obvious other reasons)
#17 to #14 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
God, the stupidity. It burns.
Protip: The second amendment was enacted so the people are on the same level of weaponry as the military.
#35 to #17 - brettd has deleted their comment [-]
#21 to #17 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
that was in the 1700's when we could be invaded by england I think that won't happen now so it's kind of useless to have military grade weapons
#57 to #21 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
It wasn't to protect us from England, it was to protect us from the newly formed US government lest the government get too power hungry or overstep it's constitutional limits.
#24 to #21 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter. It wasn't made to protect against England; rather, it was created to protect the American people the American government.
#31 to #24 - sketchfactor (01/30/2013) [-]
Well if it gives civilians the rights to have the same level or weaponry as the military, then we better start distributing tanks.
Well if it gives civilians the rights to have the same level or weaponry as the military, then we better start distributing tanks.
User avatar #94 to #31 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
You can legally own a tank, and in most states drive it if you have street treads.
User avatar #86 to #31 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Gladly. Sounds pretty ******* fun, actually.
#34 to #31 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
Tanks would be impractical in urban warfare, and buying jet fuel for an Abrams would be fairly expensive, not to mention the cost of HE or AP shells.
But it I could afford one, I know I sure as hell would own one.
#38 to #34 - Azz (01/30/2013) [-]
MFW my girlfriend's dad has a Bulldog tank sitting in one of their three barns...
User avatar #11 to #7 - fasthink ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
for saying magical fairy princessistration? Naw, FJ got rid of word filters like a year ago,,, they kicked ass
#77 to #11 - dudu (01/30/2013) [-]
magical fairy princess? where are you?!
#15 to #11 - misledzach (01/30/2013) [-]
I miss those
User avatar #8 to #7 - joekooldash (01/30/2013) [-]
the **** ? FJ just trolled me.
 Friends (0)