Guns. Seriously, why?. fat king. putting up with I am nut letting my country be ruled by a dictator. further, I' m gun start killing mania} want to ta davvi" '  tags Go here i think
x
Click to expand

Comments(184):

[ 184 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#38 - felixjarl ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Ban guns, legalize light sabers.
User avatar #88 to #38 - lasmamoe (02/19/2013) [-]
**** it, legalize sabers in general.
User avatar #127 to #38 - ghettograndpa (02/19/2013) [-]
COME JOIN RUSSIA, WE HAVE LIGHT SABERS AND VODKA
User avatar #59 to #38 - generaljackass (02/19/2013) [-]
Putin it's all fun and games until the bears harness the power of the force.
#24 - doktorpaj (02/19/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#20 - iatedub (02/19/2013) [-]
Most people don't realize most of the gun community hate James "Run away from my squad and let them die" Yeager.. Pussy ran away and got like 5 people killed including a VIP that he was supposed to protect with his life...



He is also a internet tough guy that says "I'll pay you to come down here and call me a pussy to my face! I will beat the ******* **** out of you!"

User avatar #138 to #20 - deadrifler (02/19/2013) [-]
He got his handgun carry permit suspended after these videos. Sign that apparently people CAN pull their heads out of their ass from time to time.
User avatar #76 to #20 - haydn (02/19/2013) [-]
Can I have some background on this story please? Or a link? Searching and I can't find much
User avatar #123 to #76 - mondominiman (02/19/2013) [-]
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-47211.html
User avatar #21 to #20 - iatedub (02/19/2013) [-]
To top it all off, he CLAIMS that he was running to get to a better "Position" To take out the attackers.. He had a bullet proof SUV to hide behind but he decided to hide in a ditch until the gun fire stopped then ran off into the desert..
#64 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
What follows is my opinion on the gun issue. Feel free to disregard it.

I'm from Australia, and barely anyone I know owns a gun. You CAN own them here, but there's a whole bunch of licensing and paperwork to go through, you have to prove you have need of one and such. Also, anything from machine gun upwards on the destruction scale has to be rendered fully inoperable before you can so much as put a deposit on it.

So no, we don't have a lot of guns. We don't have them hanging on walls, and they barely ever come up in politics. Our police carry a six-shot Smith and Wesson Model 10 (had to wiki that) and most police officers will be able to confidently say that they have never had to draw it.

Not a whole lot of gun crime, and if a shot goes off, it's not uncommon for a few dozen people to call it in.

We get by perfectly fine without a gun in every home, we get by perfectly fine without pointing guns at every crook, so it absolutely baffles me to see people so obsessed with their weapons.
Can anybody shed some light on this? Why are guns so important in domestic America? Does it all come down to the constitutional "right to bear arms"?
User avatar #100 to #64 - theshadowed ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
I do believe it stems from the War of Independence.

The 13 colonies were getting a bit rowdy due to a new tax. The Tax had paid for the 7 Years War, which had saved them from being French, but they still objected to the tax
as they had no say in the matter, due to fact the colonies didn't get representatives, as it would be too difficult and impractical sailing back and forth across the Atlantic. The Governors were elected, until the 1770s, when the trouble started.

Anyway, because of the new tax, the 'Sons of Liberty', a group of American Colonists who disliked not being independent led a raid on East India Trading Company ships,
who were a joint-stock company who occasionally dabbled in suppressing India. The Son of Liberty, dressed in very bad Native American costumes, dumped the tea on the trade ships into the harbour, damaging the income of Great Britain.

The British, were understandably pissed. SO they cracked down, moving a lot more regiments in, and hiring a few more 'Jager' regiments (German mercenaries), they
began to be a lot more ruthless to the Colonists. The Sons of Liberty became even more angry, and started stock-piling weapons. At this time, there had been a few small uprisings, like the Boston Massacre, but nothing big.

Then, the British made a move. 700 British regulars (commonly known as 'redcoats'), under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith marched on the towns of Lexington and
Concord, to arrest Samuel Adams, a leader of the Sons of Liberty, and de-militarise the militia there, who had a worrying supply of weaponry. At this point, Paul Revere
made his famous midnight ride to warn the militia, though he had 3 companions, and he abandoned them to be captured.

The British marched on Lexington and Concord. The Vanguard, under command of the marine Major John Pitcairn halted in front of the militia. Both sides ordered their soldiers to only fired if they were fired upon. But, a shot was fired from someone, (the shot hear 'round the world).
#130 to #100 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
i thought the british sent the tea to the americans as a gesture of good will (although they really just wanted to make sure the americans were still dependent on the british) and the americans were like " **** yo **** " and dumped it all into the river.
User avatar #137 to #130 - theshadowed ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
'twas the East India Company trading ships. They were selling them, and thats why the Brits got royally pissed off
#111 to #100 - ARRRGGGG (02/19/2013) [-]
Ok dude you're trying too hard.
User avatar #114 to #111 - theshadowed ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
I was explaining why guns are important to the US, which is what he asked. I just did it in detail.
User avatar #103 to #100 - theshadowed ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
(too many characters, had to carry over)

Anyway, the battle had started. Eventually, due to the British being quickly out numbered, the battle was lost. This led to the siege of Boston, and the Battle of
Bunker Hill.

So, due to the British attempting to take away the Americans guns lighting the powder keg that was the War of Independence, the colonists decided to say that
the Americans could keep their guns, to defend their fledging nation, and to show the world they were free

TL;DR: The British tried to take the Colonist's guns, and they got so pissed they put it at the top of their constitution.
#179 to #103 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
That puts a lot of things in context, thanks. We're saturated with your TV shows, but not a whole lot of your history.
User avatar #181 to #179 - theshadowed ONLINE (02/20/2013) [-]
Haha, I'm actually British. I just love history
#185 to #181 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
Oh, well the comment still stands then xD we get a lot of BBC.

Cheers for the independence btw.
#124 to #64 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
I want you to do what Australia did, but with ever. single. person in the US. That's including the illegal immigrants that possess firearms, and even the criminals. Then I want you to better defend out US-Mexico border, so the Mexican Cartel can't just pop on over like they do, with their guns, and start slaughtering the now defenseless US citizens. I then want you to remove ALL firearms from every black market in existence, as even guns from other countries would find their way here, because there are so many criminals in need of them.

Sound too hard? Oh, I wonder why guns are kind of a necessity for LEGAL, RESPONSIBLE individuals in protection of their family and homes. Why have people adopted such useless ways of life? So you're saying it's better to be totally defenseless and not prepared for a life-threatening situation involving whatever it may be (man with knife, bat, any form of weapon), then to be responsible and prepared? Tell me, why should I depend the life of my family AND my own, just because some people use guns for atrocious things? I am trained in tactical use with my firearms, and strenuously so in gun safety, yet am tagged as a paranoid psycho, because I want to be protected from all eventualities. Being prepared and ready for anything is a natural trait. Being scared and thinking that someone else will always protect you is foolhardy, and will eventually get you killed.

#177 to #124 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
I haven't tagged you as paranoid, I just didn't understand your viewpoint, so I asked about it *shrug*
I don't think there is a way to get rid of every gun ever, nor is it desirable to do so. Honestly if I lived in an area so crime-washed that I needed a gun, I'd probably move. That's not always an option though, so each to their own.
#135 to #124 - bannon (02/19/2013) [-]
James Holmes: Legal Responsible Individual
#150 to #135 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
What's funny with you referring to James Holmes is that people will kill regardless of if it's with firearms or not.

22 children were stabbed in China. Stabbed being the keyword here, implying that the man used nothing but a KNIFE. Unless of course he had a gun with a bayonet.

A woman in India was brutally raped and then vaginally destroyed with, not a gun, but a metal rod. It happens to not fire bullets, if you were wondering.

I guess since people are killed every day with automobiles, we should ban them? People kill themselves with ropes, so ropes need to go too. Oh and all chemicals, as deaths have occurred through those as well.

But hey, I guess asinine fools that believe the total banning of guns will actually solve anything are allowed to have their opinion, regardless of the fact that even more people would die because of it. I guess the media is doing a good, effective job using horrific events involving guns to sway everyone's opinion. Good job being blind, bucko
User avatar #168 to #150 - bannon (02/19/2013) [-]
If you go onto Wikipedia to find the list of rampage killings, then count how many of those were in the US. Now out of all those rampages, do you know how many didn't involve guns?

1/2 of a murder spree. . . you know why it's a half? Because one guy used a hatchet and a rifle for his murder spree. So I decided to use that as a fraction.

Now, for a lot of countries, they only allow someone who has been specially trained and is employed by that countries law enforcement to use weapons/guns. If you're worried about the Cartel, move further North, I'm sure you won't have the problem with the Canadians coming across the border with those problems.

People saying that guns are necessary, they're only right whenever the other person may have a gun. The reason why the other person has a gun in America is because it's so easy to get a hold of one. If the laws were stricter, you wouldn't have to worry about somebody breaking into your house with a gun, also meaning that you don't have to shoot someone.

Don't let the paranoia sneak up on you too badly. . .
#147 to #135 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
Story: An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment: "an adventure story".

I hadn't realized I was telling a story, but good job being just another easily band-wagoned internet user.
#70 to #64 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah one day there may not be any police to protect you due to budget cuts, or the government might turn tyrannical and implement marshall law then the people will need guns to protect their state. Just because we live in a developed nation does not make us immune to a government abusing its powers or collapsing
#77 to #70 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
Somehow I think policing the state is pretty high up the budget agenda. Also, things are pretty chilled here... tyranny and martial law are unlikely.
Thirdly, not sure that everybody having a gun is a good thing when law breaks down. Seems like the opposite to me.

Is it fair to say that America is really this afraid of its government?
#71 to #64 - harryblazer (02/19/2013) [-]
some americans live in very high crime areas that are not safe. if you watch the news, they always bring up a rape,kidnapping,home invasion,robberry,ect. I dont ive in an area with that much crime, but I know people that have and they tell me its very scary. Im more pro gun then anti gun, but there are some things I dont agree with on the pro side.But, making something illegal doesnt make it magically go away. It didnt work with alcohal, its not working with drugs, so when these ******** politicians say we need to ban guns they forget that criminals dont follow they law, so they wont care about any laws anyway. from what my friends have told me, they feel alot safer with a .45 next to their bed then waiting 5 ******* minutes for the cops. Thats my take on it atleast
#82 to #71 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
That seems fair, but it buys in to the weapons industry theory somebody else put forth. A gunsmith sells to a criminal, so you'd better buy one too. Only one guy is winning there.

Obviously you can't wave your wand and magic all the guns away at once. Then you have an unarmed public facing armed criminals. But perhaps a long term plan that phased them all out might be beneficial? Reduce the availability and so forth?
#87 to #82 - harryblazer (02/19/2013) [-]
I respect your opinion. I live in Massachussets, wich is very stirct on guns (no automatics, certain calibers are banned, ect.). My friends I talked about, moved to Boston after college. you ever scene the departed, or gone baby gone? they lived in places like that for a whie and they still heard automatic gun fire(something that supposed banned here) what im saying is that the commen criminal doesnt give a **** about other people, or laws so even though they are banned here, criminals are still using automatic weapons. My cousin ives down south (virginia) which has more lax gun control and she says thetre is less crime because if a crook knows everyone has a gun, they're less likely to attack you
#90 to #87 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
Ergh, scary =/
I understand why they would arm up in that circumstance, but it seems to just perpetuate the cycle. Are those guns usually shipped in from other states, or other countries?
#112 to #90 - harryblazer (02/19/2013) [-]
the criminals? I'd assume, but ive never asked them. I've heard stories of them making simple pea shooter pistols out o fpipes and air pressure. You really want to scare yourself, youtube "a tour of detroits ghetto"
#73 to #64 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
I feel since it is in the constitution and our forefathers wanted us to be able to readily defend ourselves let's say if there is corrupt government that abuses it's citizens we have the right to defend ourselves and reclaim what America was originally intended to be, home of the free where everyone has equal rights, and there should be little in the way of arguing that.
Sure you can put restrictions but only some like say remove LMG's from households sure, but rifles, handguns, and whatnot, have their place among hunters and the general populace as a means of food and self defense. Gun's also allow soldiers who are no longer in service a hobby of collecting and practicing with weapons they're familiar with.
The Federal Government has already tried Censoring the internet multiple times and so the people here are getting antsy that they're trying to take and censor so much from us we'll be helpless if we need to defend ourselves from what is turning into a tyrannical government.
#85 to #73 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
Your forefathers wrote that law in a time of fewer people, fewer conflicts, and fewer peaceful solutions though. It made sense when America was fairly untamed, and threatened from within and without, but in this era it doesn't seem like such a great idea.

I like your soldiers point though. Rifle clubs are a different matter, and it's cool to think that veterans can keep themselves busy like that.
#75 to #64 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
We fought a war to get our country and our freedom and we might have to do it again. Better to be safe than sorry. Not to mention blasting TV's, junk cars, and other random **** with my bump fire sks is fun as **** . And we hunt.
#83 to #75 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
I'm all for blasting junk, but I find it incredulous that you think you have to be prepared for another independence war at any moment. Is it that worrying?
User avatar #91 to #83 - pokemonstheshiz (02/19/2013) [-]
it's not going to happen. And if it does, it shouldn't happen. When the founding fathers decided we should have guns so we could revolt against the government was when they didn't know if their system would work or if a tyrant would assume control. That hasn't happened, the system works. The government can be changed politically by the people's decisions, if the people are idiots or don't agree with you that's not a reason to revolt, that's just butthurt becuase others have different views than you.
There is no possible way a revolt of that scale anyway, the government kind of has the military on their side. Any revolution would be a small amount of people, and wouldn't get very far. If you could get a large enough group together, that same ******* group could have voted the person they want into whichever office they have complaints about. If you want to claim that scumbags are in office because people don't care about politics, then what's a revolution going to do? You're just going to wind up with the same sort next time.
And my last point is that revolution is a ******* pipe dream. What are you going to do next? Make another government, because you have all the answers? People will always be corrupt, you will wind up with the same **** soon. You might delay it a bit, but it will be right back to the same thing.
#92 to #91 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
Hmmm. I think a militant revolution is a pipe dream, but there are other ways to change a government.
User avatar #94 to #92 - pokemonstheshiz (02/19/2013) [-]
yeah, through political activism. But some people think running in with guns blasting will solve everything because I guess they're to lazy to promote their political views. If America really cared about changing things they would have voted third party in the Presidential Election this year.
#95 to #94 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
They would have voted third party ever*
User avatar #97 to #95 - pokemonstheshiz (02/19/2013) [-]
true, but third party in the Presidential would have sent a bigger message than anywhere else. I had high hopes for Gary Johnson, I didn't think he'd win, but I thought he'd pull a few percentage points. Just by his track record and years of experience he was better qualified than Obama or Romeny.
User avatar #93 to #91 - pokemonstheshiz (02/19/2013) [-]
tl;dr the 2nd Amendment would be useless now, but when it was relevant it created a strong gun culture in America so now there's a legit reason to keep it, which is to protect us from the idiots who can also get guns.
User avatar #101 to #64 - jeffthellamaking ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
Paranoia.
User avatar #107 to #64 - cumwhore (02/19/2013) [-]
Australia is an island. America sits atop the most violent region in the world (Latin America). Atop this violent region, America pursues this insane war on drugs. That's most of the gun violence, drug trafficking related, Sandy Hook is just being exploited for political purpose. It's the exception, not the rule. While it's true that gun control may be effective in Australia, it probably wouldn't be in America. There are just too many guns here already. Our most violent cities have the strictest gun laws (Chicago, Washington)
#178 to #107 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
Latin America's the most violent region in the world?
Well **** . Didn't know that.

I think 'too many guns here already' is a big part of the problem.
User avatar #186 to #178 - cumwhore (02/20/2013) [-]
Too many guns here already isn't a problem per se, it just means that any attempts to "control" guns are going to be ludacris. America has a lower rate of hot burglary than Britain and many other European countries. We also have a lower rate of rape. In actually, we have lower rates than Europe in most types of crime, except actual killings, which doesn't mean murder. Killing in self-defense happens much more frequently in America as well. Long story short, I blame the war on drugs. End the war on drugs, and the price goes down, and so does the violence associated with it. No one kills someone over the right to sell beer to a particular region.
User avatar #98 to #64 - superunclesam (02/19/2013) [-]
There is an excessive amount of gang violence and other crime is in the US and while it has gone significantly since the 90's many of us still believe in the right to defend ourselves. I hope I never have to draw and fire on another person. i'm perfectly content with shooting paper. Besides shooting for sport can be quite fun and relaxing.
#180 to #98 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
I've shot paper, too, and you're right, it's fun. Good attitude to have there regarding drawing.
User avatar #65 to #64 - ichbinlegion **User deleted account** (02/19/2013) [-]
weapon industry
#66 to #65 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
I guess that makes a perverse kind of sense. Gun companies don't care what their products are used for, they're just in it for the money.
You'd think that a populace would recognize that feeding a company that makes compact handfuls of death is a bad idea though.
#78 to #64 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
America is just a bit trigger-happy, we feel like we need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns, and those that wish to harm need guns because we have guns too, and it becomes a vicious cycle.

As far as i know, there still is a bunch of licensing and paperwork, but its much looser. I do think it needs to be tightened, it would definitely keep guns out of the wrong hands.

inb4 BUT MAI FREEDUMB
#84 to #78 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
It's good to see that cycle acknowledged.

That's what really gets me, when people oppose tighter gun laws. It's like, these are literally a fistful of death that you point at somebody else. We should probably keep track of who has one.
User avatar #99 to #78 - superunclesam (02/19/2013) [-]
I agree that our background checks should be stricter and the paper work more demanding, but these bans such as magazine limits and "assault weapon" bans really solve nothing. They're what I like to call "feel good" solutions because they just make everyone feel like they're doing something good. A gun is a gun and in the wrong hands it's gonna do damage regardless of it's magazine size (it can be reloaded) or if it has a pistol grip (I've seen shooters more deadly with a basic stock) or even if it's a semi automatic.
#182 to #99 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
I think banning assault rifles sounds like a great idea, but you've forced me to question that. What's the difference between a guy with thirty rounds for his handgun and a guy with thirty rounds in a clip?
I guess it's a whole lot easier to kill people with an assault rifle? Should that be taken in to consideration?
User avatar #187 to #182 - superunclesam (02/20/2013) [-]
Guns make it easier to kill people. It doesn't matter if it has a collapsing stock, a pistol grip or a 30 round magazine (I read a report of a guy going on a rampage with a 30-06 bolt action rifle and taking down like 20 or so people including a SWAT team member. I'll look for it again and post a link). Limited magazines can be reloaded. With enough practice a reload can take mere seconds with almost any rifle or pistol. Assault weapon bans haven't worked in the past and total bans do the opposite of what they're supposed to. Crime goes UP.
User avatar #67 to #64 - LtMcG ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
We had a violent revolution to win our independence. We hold dear to that.
#105 to #67 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
Colonists: HALP! DA FRENCHS!
Britain: Yeah okay we spend a ******** of Money for our Army to get your Arse Safe!
Colonists: yeah thanks mate!
Britain: Okay the Frenchs are gone. Could we get higher taxes for a while for hel...
USA:GET OF MY LAWN!!!!
User avatar #164 to #105 - JoshBauer (02/19/2013) [-]
HA! More like..

Britain: HALP! DA FRENCHS!
Colonists: Alright we'll help cause they're allied with Indians and we hate Indians
Britain: Thanks! More taxes for you!
Colonists: wat
#68 to #67 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
Understandable I suppose. We kind of, politely asked for independence, and the British looked at us like " **** , are you still here? Yeah, go for it."
It was a fairly mediocre affair.
#136 to #68 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
man we used to love those guys, even after federation. everyone was all like "we as australians must love the mother country", then when WW1 rolled around the poms sent our soldiers ahead of theirs as cannon fodder, and we didn't appreciate that one bit, so now no matter what the cost we must always beat them at cricket
#183 to #136 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
Oh I KNOW. Gallipoli landing man, it was the war's longest ******* .
You know the most hysterical part of our heritage is that we weren't officially independent of the British parliament until 1986?
Somebody pointed out that they could still make laws about us and both parliaments were like "oh... **** ."
They couldn't figure out who had the authority to remove that power, so they both counted to three and said "Australia is independent" at the same time. Then we beat them at cricket some more.
User avatar #146 to #64 - infinitereaper (02/19/2013) [-]
Dude you lived in freaking Australia, that's like living in Canada. You don't need guns you have boomerangs.
#184 to #146 - crickity (02/20/2013) [-]
While we are all trained in the Thirteen Forms of Returning Death from a very young age, the destructive power of the boomerang often feels like overkill, and we like to fall back on guns for smaller enemies like car-spiders and land sharks.
User avatar #69 to #64 - shazmothree (02/19/2013) [-]
Well obviously you guys don't have a lot of gun crime, you're too busy fighting off mobs of kangaroos and armored spiders
#72 to #69 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
That does help, but a splinter faction of militant koalas kind of has our back now. The Endless War is much easier these days.
User avatar #74 to #72 - shazmothree (02/19/2013) [-]
Seriously though, is it true that when kangaroo populations get too high people will go on kangaroo killing sprees?
#80 to #74 - crickity (02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, we kill about two million of them a year sometimes. They might be native and adorable, but they sure aren't endangered.

Culling, i.e killing them just to reduce numbers, is rare. Usually they're skinned for their tough-as leather. Also, they're delicious.
User avatar #96 - superunclesam (02/19/2013) [-]
If James Yeager is the poster child for our cause, then I give up already. I'm so glad he got his license taken away. He made EVERYONE look bad. Everyone.
#81 - hokeymon (02/19/2013) [-]
We should focus on killing people with one punch, swordsmanship and using black magic to summon satan to aid us in our battles.
#165 - AngryPlatypus (02/19/2013) [-]
This man should not be the face of gun owners in America. He is a ******* idiot.
#161 - rsfilmsworld (02/19/2013) [-]
MFW people are having serious politic debates on a picture from a show where they make jokes at politics.
#162 to #161 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
FAT BEN MADE POOP
User avatar #141 - dreadedsin (02/19/2013) [-]
Who needs gun control, we need idiot control
User avatar #153 to #141 - zombielovez (02/19/2013) [-]
aka Nazism
User avatar #118 - thebritishguy (02/19/2013) [-]
that presenter is the only person who can wear that costume and nobody would even make a comment about it
#102 - LtMcG ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
Let's say tomorrow the POTUS and House decide to ban guns. The supreme court is all for it and says it's constitutional. No federal, state, or private agency can take away the current guns owned by the populace.

There is a specific clause most of you uneducated Americans and other world inhabitants don't understand about our Constitution which is the grandfather clause. Because it was legal to own a gun before the passing of this law, any gun that was purchased before set law passed date (and ratified) is still legal to own and use. Therefore, a majority of the United States will remained armed. These gun ban laws are essentially pointless.
#160 to #102 - gonz (02/19/2013) [-]
however, any unregistered weapons that violate the new gun laws will be subject to these laws., even if it was purchased before the laws passed. and since most of these automatic weapons are unregistered it will have a substantial effect
#119 to #102 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
That moment when you realize that the constitution is just a piece of paper that, when the time comes, will be readily ignored by the government. If they decide to ban and confiscate guns, they will do so, even if it requires deadly force.

Obama has already started asking officers in the US military whether they would fire upon US citizens if they refuse to give up their arms. Those that were unsure or flat out said no have either left the military themselves, or were removed. Do the math
User avatar #122 to #119 - LtMcG ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
I said no because I believe that the President's order would be unconstitutional and illegal. Therefore, I am not obligated by USCMJ to follow his orders.
User avatar #143 to #119 - reginleif ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
Now I'm not a big fan of Obama (I lean left, but not as far as he does in some areas, and in others I think he's a neocon)....... but hasn't the question of shooting on US civilians been asked to police and soldiers BEFORE Obama came to office?

I mean I remember this being an issue during at least the Bush years. Not that I'm blaming him or anything. ^^
#104 to #102 - mexikaner (02/19/2013) [-]
you are a beacon of knowledge in a dark world of ignorance
you are a beacon of knowledge in a dark world of ignorance
#110 to #102 - bearsalley (02/19/2013) [-]
Since, in your scenario, the supreme court says it's fine to ban guns, what would be stopping them from amending the constitution, getting rid of the grandfather clause, and taking away the guns people already have?
User avatar #120 to #110 - LtMcG ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
My scenario is more likely with the supreme court justices right now. Yours however is more likely to be overturned.
#125 to #120 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
well you'd think the members of congress would've read up on their **** and would know of the grandfather clause, and as such would seek to remove that. if your crazy scenario were to happen, bearsalley's scenario would almost certainly play out with it
#149 to #102 - suewingyu (02/19/2013) [-]
Diane Feinsteins bill, does in fact, grandfather the weapons. However, anyone who grandfathers their weapons, must pay a $200 tax, get fingerprints and a picture taken.
I'm not scared to get my prints or picture taken, but $200 just because someone owns a gun that has the ability to accept a 17 round magazine (basically every glock/sig/beretta/etc.)
It feels a whole lot like "Infringing" to me.
#108 to #102 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
until the person owning it eventually dies. And a constitution isn't infallible and can be changed. There's no magical mystical constitution god whizzing around enforcing all these laws.
User avatar #144 to #108 - infinitereaper (02/19/2013) [-]
That's part of why this country is going to hell.
#113 to #102 - StrahdD (02/19/2013) [-]
Except that Missouri's proposed gun laws completely ignore the Grandfather Cause.
"Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons” to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.

Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”

Here are some additional provisions found in the gun control bill:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

So yea, the government doesn't care about the Grandfather Clause, they'll find ways around it.
User avatar #22 - CallMeCrisco (02/19/2013) [-]
Real gun owners hate this guy. I'm ashamed to live in the same state as him.
User avatar #29 to #22 - kiethstone (02/19/2013) [-]
as apposed to fake gun owners?
#106 to #29 - cumwhore (02/19/2013) [-]
I own fake guns.
#49 to #29 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
Because anyone who doesn't know as much about guns as him isn't worthy of being classified as someone who owns something.
User avatar #30 to #29 - CallMeCrisco (02/19/2013) [-]
real in this case meaning those with sense about them.
#31 to #30 - kiethstone (02/19/2013) [-]
oh.
oh.
#35 to #31 - justsomechickyo (02/19/2013) [-]
Wayyyyyy broken......
#36 to #31 - kaboomz (02/19/2013) [-]
This image has expired
woah
#170 to #36 - tragono **User deleted account** (02/19/2013) [-]
#128 to #31 - hewhoepicfails (02/19/2013) [-]
****		! THE UNIVERSE IS TEARING APARPOJUPIOGHUIOGIFY8UTF
**** ! THE UNIVERSE IS TEARING APARPOJUPIOGHUIOGIFY8UTF
User avatar #32 to #31 - kiethstone (02/19/2013) [-]
wow that gif ****** up
#37 to #30 - hellfiazz ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, but people without the sense about them who still go out and buy them do exist. I imagine there's a quite large portion of gun owners who are like this.
User avatar #174 to #37 - CallMeCrisco (02/19/2013) [-]
Yup. But that's their right. The can keep on talking stupid, but so long as they don't actually act out on their stupidity the only harm they're causing is to the gun owner community.

But we're used to being bashed anyways.
User avatar #89 to #29 - lasmamoe (02/19/2013) [-]
like the people who use the term "real gamers".

It has to stop.
User avatar #176 to #89 - kiethstone (02/19/2013) [-]
no. there is a difference between people who play games and gamers
User avatar #134 - fishratsas (02/19/2013) [-]
I love shooting and believe in some gun control (not banning guns) but this guys a dick and should have his firearms taken away.
#148 - tytonk (02/19/2013) [-]
Nearly everyone here has a strong view on guns and gun control and I'm just here waiting for my porn to buffer
#154 to #148 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
farting makes it buffer faster.
User avatar #16 - Zarke (02/19/2013) [-]
Well, he's a polarizing guy to be sure. He's got some decent information and his heart usually seems to be in the right place, but his delivery is... not exactly sensitive and not always as "tactful" as you'd expect an instructor in his field to be. Now, his statements bring a handful of rights issues to mind. I mean, is what he's saying about the Second Amendment protected by the First, or does him utilizing his First Amendment rights in a manner that threatens the rights of others to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness void that right? Is the idea behind the message what's being protected ("Don't take my guns, yo"), or is the whole statement protected? It's a lot to think about. Either way, nice job James. You're giving people on your side a great name.
User avatar #25 to #16 - Yojimbo (02/19/2013) [-]
Doesn't he seem to be under the false assumption that the government is going to come and take all his guns though? I thought they were just banning high cap mags.
#39 to #25 - spacestalin (02/19/2013) [-]
BUT THAT'S THE FIRST STEP
First, they take all of our 300+ bullets mags! Then they come for our scopes and our dum-dum bullets! AND BEFORE YOU CAN SAY "ALLELUIA, JESUS" YOU HAVE A SOVIET DICTATORSHIP WITH gay ABORTIONS AND ATHEISTIC MARRIAGE!!!111!!ONE!1!
User avatar #53 to #39 - ReeferTrees (02/19/2013) [-]
The police are issued hollow point rounds... hollow points are banned in warfare for being inhumane and our police have them.

That's how we deal with our citizens.
User avatar #175 to #25 - Zarke (02/19/2013) [-]
They'll do what they can. Gun control in the US has been sliding down a fairly slippery slops since the 1930's. To be honest, I'd rather see some of the current laws reversed than see new ones put in place.

Mostly because I'm a recreational shooter and a fully-automatic rifle would be damn fun (but expensive) to have.
User avatar #152 - dinkie (02/19/2013) [-]
That's Tennessee for ya. One pissed off redneck can ruin it for everyone
User avatar #3 - swiekim (02/18/2013) [-]
..he kinda looks like a white terry crews
User avatar #4 - remsaman (02/18/2013) [-]
That guy looks like the russian-accented american that helps you in far cry 3
#44 to #4 - zenethe ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
HERPA DERP I'M SO PISSED THAT YOU MADE A MISTAKE! **** YOU REMSAMAN GO ******* DIE IN A HOLE! sound about right? that's a totally appropriate reaction right?
User avatar #57 to #4 - andnowducks (02/19/2013) [-]
He was German brah.
User avatar #26 to #4 - miniwilliam (02/19/2013) [-]
He's german..

That isn't even god damn CLOSE to russian

******* HELL HE EVEN SAYS ******* "BLITZKRIEG", SINCE WHEN IS ******* BLITZKRIEG RUSSIAN?!
-3
#27 to #26 - remsaman has deleted their comment [-]
#52 to #27 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
Its hard to when someone is missing their brain and their dick.
User avatar #8 to #4 - sladee (02/19/2013) [-]
Sam, and like Banana said it's german
User avatar #10 to #4 - smercenary (02/19/2013) [-]
He was german...
User avatar #6 to #4 - xXBananaBishopXx (02/19/2013) [-]
Wasn't that a German accent?
User avatar #41 to #6 - iusedtocare (02/19/2013) [-]
Yup.
[ 184 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)