Basically. Annnnndddd i started a political war in the comments.... Or just a lot of pictures of Nazis. I saw a movie once where only the police and military ha
Home Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Basically

Annnnndddd i started a political war in the comments.... Or just a lot of pictures of Nazis

I saw a movie once where only the
police and military had guns.
It was called Schindler' s List.
...
+753
Views: 51809
Favorited: 112
Submitted: 02/22/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to badsamaritan E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(575):

[ 575 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#621 - batwill **User deleted account** (02/23/2013) [-]
You know, I'm really not enjoying the political ********* and all, but I'm a little feelsey at the moment, so I'd like to point out the fact that Schindler's List wasn't about a people unable to fight back because the government took their guns. It's about one person doing right in a corrupt, disgusting world to make a difference for as many people as he could. Guns aren't the reason the Third Reich had power, it's because they got ordinary people on their side. Gun control isn't that important either way, and I don't care if we want more or less guns in our society. I don't own any guns. What's important and tragic is that we're not putting as much worry on being decent people as we are on how politics should deal with guns.
User avatar #619 - bersrker (02/23/2013) [-]
I'm not against owning weapons, I am against people owning automatic weapons. I live in Canada, where rifles, shotguns, and pistols are legal. Though pistols are only allowed to be in private homes. I don't understand why anyone would need a a ak-47 or M16 or anything like that.
#635 to #619 - buckofama (02/23/2013) [-]
American's are against owning automatic weapons too. That's why we made a law against it........ in 1934.
User avatar #615 - pizzaragazza (02/23/2013) [-]
even if they make it illegal, criminals will still find weapons anyways. people seem to forget about the black market.
#614 - putridgrim (02/23/2013) [-]
I'd prefer not to argue with yo people today, so I will take the second option..aaaand here you go.
#607 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account** (02/23/2013) [-]
I'm sure once guns are taken out of your hands, you're government will turn into Nazis.
I'm sure once guns are taken out of your hands, you're government will turn into Nazis.
#613 to #607 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
They won't turn into Nazis, but they will gradually infringe on rights until none are left. It is a rarity to see the government lower restrictions. NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. the government is known for violating rights.
#605 - kotos (02/23/2013) [-]
for a second there I thought that guy was a sheriff and not a jew D:
#601 - tentaquil (02/23/2013) [-]
these comments
these comments
#599 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Funny thing is that when the general populace has them they are "assault weapons." Yet, when government agencies go to purchase them and issue them, they are "defense weapons."

I'll take all the defense weapons I can!
+6
#596 - Yesitsme has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #589 - WakaTakaBang (02/23/2013) [-]
Only an idiot would suggest a ban on all firearms in America. Just remove he ones that kill people en masse.
#597 to #589 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo
Nobody wants to get rid of all guns except you know, the person creating the ban.
And semi autos kill less people per year than hammers.
#595 to #589 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
That covers semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Which leaves bolt-action rifles and muskets. That is, unless you count serial killers. Then you just have muskets.
User avatar #602 to #595 - WakaTakaBang (02/23/2013) [-]
I should have rephrased. A small Smith and Wesson is perfectly fine. When you give a man a fully automatic rifle, you equip him with the means to kill much faster. You can't hold the trigger on a pistol and wave it in one direction so that it will mow down a crowd.
#627 to #602 - buckofama (02/23/2013) [-]
How hard is it to do 30 second worth or research before you post a comment. There were no machine gun's or fully automatic rifles used in Newtown or Aurora (there were no rifles used in Newtown at all the AR-15 was never used. Adam Lanza committed those ******* with a 9mm handgun. The AR-15 he had was never fired) But regardless fully automatic weapons were not used in any massacre in the last 50 years. The last time a legally owned fully automatic firearm was used in the commission or a crime was during the prohibition. While in some states it is still legal to own a "machine gun" they are very difficult and very expensive to get it takes about four months, a ton of paperwork, and at least 2 grand. Also there is no evidence banning certain types of guns reduces crime in fact the opposite seems to be true the states/cities with the highest gun crime have the strictest gun control. The only thing that has ever been shown to reduce the chance of mass ******* is having legal conceal carry
#609 to #602 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Full-autos are such a rarity nowadays that they cost 10-40 grand each, there's only enough circulating for about .1% of the population to even own one.

Though fully automatic weapons aren't really any more threatening than any other weapon. Hosing bullets everywhere isn't a reliable way to kill a target and will only ensure that you run out of ammo faster. There's a reason the US used burst-fire on their M16s in lieu of full-auto.
User avatar #616 to #609 - WakaTakaBang (02/23/2013) [-]
A large machine gun will compensate for rate of fire when it comes to bullet capacity. If I was a machine gun wielding mitems and I was presented with the opportunity to mow down a stationary group of people in, let's say for ***** , a movie theater showing The Dark Knight Rises, I don't believe I'd give a damn about my accuracy. The U.S. military doesn't mow down crowds of enemies on a regular basis...most of the time the enemy just runs and fires back. I don't think a dense crowd of parade goers would stand much of a chance against fully automatics. In that situation, a semi would be less than desired.
#606 to #602 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Implying every man has or can get a full auto.
#588 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
So the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was........?
User avatar #583 - drganja (02/23/2013) [-]
Annnnndddd the government isn't trying to get rid of all our guns just the big ones.
#587 to #583 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
The definition of "big ones" can change. In the 20's that'd refer strictly to fully-automatic rifles.
#618 to #587 - batwill **User deleted account** (02/23/2013) [-]
We have a ban on full-auto weapons in the US today, and frankly, I like it that way. I think it's safer for everyone. The reason that ban has worked is because it's been in effect for so long that there haven't been any (many) on the streets in the first place, unlike all the guns that a few people are wanting to ban now. New gun bans would be more problematic.
#582 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Really OP? Really? Either you didn't see the movie, or have no knowledge of nazi Germany or any modern day post 90's national state.

I don't even know if this is a troll post or not...
User avatar #578 - ragingpancake (02/23/2013) [-]
aaaaaaaand a political war has started in the comments, as predicted.
User avatar #569 - jibbablabba (02/23/2013) [-]
um, isn't the ban just on Civilians owning Assault Rifles?
meaning we can still own pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.
#568 - stgfilitov (02/23/2013) [-]
Nazis you say?
Nazis you say?
#561 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"
User avatar #565 to #561 - thatkiddonovan (02/23/2013) [-]
lol why the **** do people in the U.S. want wild west law and all that **** .
Hell, let's start hanging adulterers and shooting shoplifters.
Let's settle all arguments with shootouts in the middle of town.
User avatar #617 to #565 - pizzaragazza (02/23/2013) [-]
yeah, self defense only existed on the wild frontier.
#570 to #565 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Why the **** do people in the UK want pansy laws and all that **** .
Hell, let's start prosecuting kids holding kitchen knives on facebook.
Let's settle all arguments by arresting all parties involved.
#567 to #565 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
consider America's geographic factor dumbass, its easier to get rid of guns when your on a ******* island ********
User avatar #576 to #567 - jinkmana (02/23/2013) [-]
What about Canada then?
#630 to #576 - buckofama (02/23/2013) [-]
There is civilian gun ownership in Canada. There isn't as much as in the US but there is still plenty of it. Actually Canada just got rid of their long gun registry just last year as well as a band on certain types of rifles. It is perfectly legal for Canadians to own guns (handguns or semi-automatic rifles) and by the way crime has dropped since Canada started getting rid of some of their gun control laws.
#603 to #576 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Canada has guns. Also, it's fairly easy to maintain peace with a predominately white population with a innately docile culture.
User avatar #625 to #603 - huntergriff ONLINE (02/23/2013) [-]
Canada still has gun control.
User avatar #575 to #567 - thatkiddonovan (02/23/2013) [-]
lol i wasn't talking about getting rid of guns but people are talking like the only solution to the current gun problem is to have less regulation and more guns for everyone.

Let's give teachers and elementary school students guns as well, that way they can defend themselves.

Lets give everybody a ******* gun.
#631 to #575 - buckofama (02/23/2013) [-]
Why do you assume teachers being armed would be bad. We allow armed police in schools why would a teacher be more likely to shoot someone than a cop? After several waves of terrorist attacks against schools in Israel. The Israeli government passed a law requiring teachers have guns. There have been no school shootings in Israel since (there have still been suicide bombings but I don't know how you stop a person who doesn't care if they die.) Israel has the highest conceal carry population in the world about 15% or the country is licensed to carry a concealed weapon and there are almost no mass shootings.
#586 to #575 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Allowing possession =/= giving. Not adding additional legislation =/= lessening it. Nobody is suggesting issuing weapons to everyone or getting rid of background checks that are already in place.

What is the problem with an elementary school teacher having a gun?
#560 - nooblesix (02/23/2013) [-]
Pardon me, severely British person here, wanting to know if in the US, people really believe that the Police have the capacity to become corrupt? If that's true, you don't need to arm your citizens, you need to review the way policing works. E.g, in the UK, police officers do not carry firearms, and that works on a basic level of trust (not quite the level seen in Canada, mind) that no one is going to feel the need to shoot anyone else. If you don't trust the people you are paying taxes to in order to keep you safe, then by all means arm ALL the civilians.
#634 to #560 - buckofama (02/23/2013) [-]
Pardon me, severely American person here noticing you have been experiencing an elevated level of riots recently. Where mobs of people loot stores and destroy millions of euros of property. I would like to point out that that doesn't happen in the US (except for majority black neighborhoods) I would also like to point out that the United States has far more rural areas that the UK. Average police response time is over ten minutes police response time in some areas can be as long as an hour. So we can't really rely on our police to protect us. Also you're more likely to be violently assaulted in the UK than in America. And you're almost 3 times more likely to be robbed in the UK than in America. Also you Eurofags didn't just stop after you banned guns you have taken your nanny state ethos so far that you have banned certain breeds of dogs (seriously who bans a dog). If you don't like our gun owning ways then feel free to not come here. Also did you ever consider the fact that we have our second amendment because of YOUR government.
#648 to #634 - nooblesix (02/24/2013) [-]
I have decided to address your reply in as concise a manner as possible, and have even numbered the flaws in your argument for your convenience.
1. Elevated level of riots? 2 years ago? Try elevated level of men walking into schools and shooting children. How often does that happen in the UK? Not very. What proportion of civilians here carry firearms? Not many. Go figure.
2. While your concern for material goods over peoples' lives is appreciated, here in the UK we have Pounds Sterling, not Euros.
3. If your police response times need improving, thus you cannot rely on your DESIGNATED protectors to protect you, please see my original comment: Police reform. localised, smaller forces would ensure there are no blind spots for fast response.
4. Perhaps you are more likely to be assaulted in the UK. But over here, the average person isn't too fat to defend themselves without having to use a firearm. Would you rather get in a fist fight or shoot a person, with a high probability of that person dying and your sorry arse being put in prison?
5. Of course you're 3 times as likely to be robbed: if someone so much as steps on your front lawn without your permission, you can legally kill them. What a lovely way to enforce the law.
6. Encouraging the breeding certain species of dog with attributes that enhance violent behaviour whilst being detrimental to its physical and mental health is, believe it or not, animal cruelty. Nice of you to show your support.
7. Don't get me started on nanny state **** . You yanks can get behind the wheel of a 1 ton killing machine at the age of 16, die for your country at 18, but can't decide who they want to run it until they're 21? Genius.
8. I love going to America. I genuinely do. The girls dig the accent, amongst other things.
9. Don't pin the whim of a long dead monarch and his equally long dead parliament on me or those that govern me. Your zenophobia can no longer be justified by something that happened over 200 years ago. Do grow up.
#650 to #648 - buckofama (02/24/2013) [-]
Let me respond to you. Yes I do value my property and material good over the lives of some thug criminal. And yes shooting at robbers is a very efficient way to reduce robbery. And I would rather shoot someone than get into a fight. My philosophy is if you're ever in a fair fight your tactics suck. Also there is a very low probability of somebody dying if you shoot them with a hand gun, and even if they do oh well. **** thug criminal you're just ding society and the tax pays a favor by getting rid of them. Also 2 of the four dogs you have banned were never bred to be aggressive towards people pit bulls have been loving pets for over 200 years and actually were originally bred in your home country. the Dogo and the Tosa Inu are also less violent than many of the legal breeds in your country the only truly aggressive dog you have banned is the Fila Brasilero which is mainly used as a guard dog anyways so if you aren't breaking into someone else's house you should have nothing to fear. And you have a very odd definition of animal cruelty I might add also. and what is wrong with teaching children to drive at 16, or joining the military at 18 (the legal age of adulthood) and you only have to be 18 to vote here its been that way for over 40 years now. And unless you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or California you aren't going to go to jail for shooting someone in self defense, actually in most states the cops will shake your hand for saving them the trouble of having to take out the thug and spend thousands of dollars housing them in a jail. And why should we have to rely on police honestly the idea that grown adults should need the government to protect them is kind of pathetic. Honestly who gets to designate my protector I can protect myself thank you very much. Honestly your government treats its citizens like children. And the root of xenophobia is phobia. I'm not afraid of you (why would I be I have guns) I just don't like your nanny state ideology.
#651 to #650 - nooblesix (02/25/2013) [-]
tl;dr
[NB to ensure quality of service, your rage may be recorded for training purposes]
Hey bro, I'm a fair person. I would never try to take away your right to defend yourself, the same as I wouldn't try to take away your right to be a stupid ****** . However, ask yourself this: isn't it sort of ****** up that you'd rather kill another person in unquestionably cold blood than best them in a fight and let the both of you walk away, alive, as better people? Clearly chivalry isn't something they do in America anymore. I hope I meet more enlightened people than you next time I'm stateside. Oh wait, I'm not going to Texas, so I definitely will.
#652 to #651 - buckofama (02/25/2013) [-]
I'm not entirely sure where to begin with you. Your entire argument is based off a sense or entirely undeserved moral superiority. So first off, No it isn't better to fight a criminal when you can simply shoot them. Shooting somebody who is trying to do harm to you or your property isn't 						******					 up at all its a perfectly moral (and not to mention efficient) course of action to take. The fact that you would be willing to risk your own safety as well as that of your family in order to give a criminal a "fair chance" does not make you "enlightened" it just makes you an idiot. Also killing somebody in cold blood is defined as killing an unarmed person who posed no threat, If somebody is trying to rob you or attack you they pose a threat. So shooting somebody in defense of self or property is not "unquestionably killing somebody in cold blood" (if) they die as a result of you shooting them it it perfectly justified as they could have easily avoided that fate by not trying to do harm to you or your property. (by the way most people who are shot survive). On a completely separate point. Your knowledge of your own culture seems to be about as poor as your knowledge of my culture. So to clarify 1) No, chivalry is not nor has it ever been a part of American Culture 2) Chivalry is reserved for ladies,  not thugs, criminals, or anybody who doesn't have a 						******					. 3) if Americans were to follow the codes of Chivalry it would actually EXPAND the pool of situations in which killing somebody would be justifiable to include killing somebody for simply insulting a lady. Also something to consider the United States has NEVER been invaded can the UK say that?
I'm not entirely sure where to begin with you. Your entire argument is based off a sense or entirely undeserved moral superiority. So first off, No it isn't better to fight a criminal when you can simply shoot them. Shooting somebody who is trying to do harm to you or your property isn't ****** up at all its a perfectly moral (and not to mention efficient) course of action to take. The fact that you would be willing to risk your own safety as well as that of your family in order to give a criminal a "fair chance" does not make you "enlightened" it just makes you an idiot. Also killing somebody in cold blood is defined as killing an unarmed person who posed no threat, If somebody is trying to rob you or attack you they pose a threat. So shooting somebody in defense of self or property is not "unquestionably killing somebody in cold blood" (if) they die as a result of you shooting them it it perfectly justified as they could have easily avoided that fate by not trying to do harm to you or your property. (by the way most people who are shot survive). On a completely separate point. Your knowledge of your own culture seems to be about as poor as your knowledge of my culture. So to clarify 1) No, chivalry is not nor has it ever been a part of American Culture 2) Chivalry is reserved for ladies, not thugs, criminals, or anybody who doesn't have a ****** . 3) if Americans were to follow the codes of Chivalry it would actually EXPAND the pool of situations in which killing somebody would be justifiable to include killing somebody for simply insulting a lady. Also something to consider the United States has NEVER been invaded can the UK say that?
#653 to #652 - nooblesix (02/27/2013) [-]
I can't begin to describe how stupid your argument is. "The United States has NEVER been invaded"? I've met some ignorant Americans, as I've met clever ones, but you take the whole ******* tin of biscuits. I'll have you know that your United States came about shortly after we sent the dumbest, most religious ***** from our country to live there, a stunt that significantly improving the average IQ of Europe. You're telling me that the settlers that founded your nation were never invaders? I entirely get that the content on this page is a joke, and I laughed, but it's ******* like you that genuinely believe that your government will become like the Nazis that make me lose all faith in the future of humanity. If you'd like to discuss this further, get a plane to Manchester and see if you can get your firearms through security. I'll be waiting in arrivals with a big stick. Sounds like a fair fight to me.
#654 to #653 - buckofama (02/27/2013) [-]
No the United States has never been invaded The United States didn't exist until 1776 Dumbass. Yes the settlers did invade but it wasn't the United States they were invading it was still at that point Indian land. Once a chunk of land has become a state It has never been invaded. Invad(ING) and being invad(ED) are not the same thing. For somebody who lives in the country where the English language was invented your grasp of it is rather poor. And its your country that is becoming more and more like the NAZI's. Seeing how the mass Muslim immigration you have let in is currently out breeding you , you'll be an Islamic State by 2040 (an Islamic state is basically the same thing as a National Socialist state.... only poorer...... much poorer they have the same attitudes towards Jews at least.) They will eventually have the population to vote for the discriminatory laws against Jews and other non Muslims that exist in every other Muslim country. You're pretty much already living as a Dhimmi now. And how was my previous argument dumb. Was it the fact that I used logic and reason. Which you aren't used to dealing with or the fact that I am actually able to define the words that I use something you clearly aren't able to do. To help you visualize the difference between Invading and being Invaded I will leave you with a water color portrait depicting a scene from out history remember Cowboy = invad(ING). Indian = Invad(ED)
#655 to #654 - nooblesix (03/01/2013) [-]
Suck a donkey dick. I never said the USA had been invaded you ******* fag. In all other respects: You're wrong. Don't believe me, come at me bro.
#656 to #655 - buckofama (03/02/2013) [-]
Ok now you're just embarrassing yourself. After running out of straw man arguments, being corrected on your numerous logical and definitional (I love the fact that you don't even know the definitions of English words a language your people invented) mistakes as well as your lack of understanding about your own culture. You've basically become a troll. Congratulations, The UK must be proud. What's really tragic is you don't even see how far you have fallen as a people. You used to have the largest empire in the world, look at you now. You're a bunch of adolescents begging the government to take care of you and protect you because you have utterly lost the capability to take care of yourselves. When your welfare state collapses and entire mobs of people decide that since they aren't getting their government check anymore they're just going to take what they want from you, you're going to wish you had a gun. Mark my words you will live to see the day your childish, protectionist ideology is burned to the ground along with your country by entitled savages who thought outsourcing responsibility to the government was a good idea.
#657 to #656 - nooblesix (03/02/2013) [-]
How far we've fallen as a people? Compared to the US? You must be joking. Americans, in their short time, have killed more people than the human mind can comfortably fathom. My arguments are humanist, yours are selfish, and I highly doubt that in person your 'English', for want of a better term, is anything to speak of. Still spelling 'colour' wrong, are we?

You seem to be insulting me based on my nationality. That's a) technically racism and b) hardly very ****** of you, but I see it more and more as time goes by: people like you are incapable of meaningful conversation. You instantly reevaluate the situation in order to turn two sides of the same coin into two separate teams, and insist that your team is better. I can assure you that Americans, and their various ideologies, are no better than UK citizens and theirs. Please ensure that you never again assume that I necessarily conform to or agree with the policies of my government. My country may eventually forget what it is to be British, but I never will, and no gun has the power to change that. It's been interesting learning about your outdated opinions, and if you'd like to discuss it further, just inbox me your number, or better yet, come and see me any time!
#658 to #657 - buckofama (03/03/2013) [-]
Again you don't know the definition of basic English words. The United Kingdom is not a race its not possible to be racist against it. And you imperial colonialism has killed far more people around the world than the United States has so if number of deaths caused is your moral benchmark you fail on that account too. By the way your multiculturalist ideology is a fallacy. You are right that I am separating my "team" from yours and insisting mine is better (because it is). Cultures by virtue of existing are not necessarily equal. If they were they would be equally productive and equally prosperous. but they're not The united states is economically superior The US is far more productive, Our GDP as a percentage of population vastly exceeds yours, Our military is the most advanced military on the planet. We are culturally more dominant all 50 of the highest grossing movies are all American, the top 5 best selling artists are all American with Andrew Lloyd Weber of all people coming, we perform more groundbreaking science with almost every major medical advancement in the last 50 years taking place in the US. Our culture IS superior to yours. 70 years ago that wouldn't have been the case but you have fallen so far and you don't even realize it. You have traded actual achievement and global dominance for a nanny state and an unearned and undeserved sense of moral superiority. Your anger at me and other American's is pure envy that fact that you keep talking about vacationing in the US is proof where as I would never set foot in your country. Why would I want to. If I wanted to hang out with snooty Europeans I would go to France they at least have taste not to mention they are more attractive than you. I don't know what is up with your Brits but generations of inbreeding has caused you to have some seriously ****** up overbites. For real you look like deformed white people.
#604 to #560 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Little example of america being protected.
http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=_TPucQHtHZs
#649 to #604 - nooblesix (02/24/2013) [-]
Well, that video certainly made the use of guns look like the right thing to do.
User avatar #559 - thatkiddonovan (02/23/2013) [-]
This is a stupid comparison.
In England, police don't carry firearms and guns are extremely controlled.

They have (on average) .07 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants.

America has over 5.1 per 100,000 (over 40 times). It's a culture of guns and ****** and violence. no matter who owns them, it'll still be a problem.
#555 - thatkiddonovan (02/23/2013) [-]
It's not about taking guns away.   
It's about making sure guns don't go to the wrong people   
It's about making sure that those people can't 						******					 groups of people instead of leaving a suicide note.   
   
Buy a shotgun, a handgun, a hunting rifle, hell even a sniper rifle,   
But what is the practical use of an assault rifle other than killing dozens of people?   
I know, people want to believe that there will be a big government takeover and that they're taking away our rights.   
   
I'm a gun owner. I keep my family and my property safe with two handguns and a 12-gauge.  But unless space t-rex's invade, i don't need any heavy artillery.
It's not about taking guns away.
It's about making sure guns don't go to the wrong people
It's about making sure that those people can't ****** groups of people instead of leaving a suicide note.

Buy a shotgun, a handgun, a hunting rifle, hell even a sniper rifle,
But what is the practical use of an assault rifle other than killing dozens of people?
I know, people want to believe that there will be a big government takeover and that they're taking away our rights.

I'm a gun owner. I keep my family and my property safe with two handguns and a 12-gauge. But unless space t-rex's invade, i don't need any heavy artillery.
#557 to #555 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Cho used handguns and he has the high score. You aren't stopping anything. And you aren't a gun owner, you're a fudd.
User avatar #564 to #557 - thatkiddonovan (02/23/2013) [-]
Fudds own guns for sport, i own them for protection.
I left out high capacity clips. It's just not needed.

Answer me this: Why would you or I need an assualt rifle? And no crazy hypotheticals.
#572 to #564 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
Hunting, target shooting, and self-defense against multiple aggressors. Korean shop owners during the LA riots used those weapons to great effect in defense of their livelihoods.
User avatar #581 to #572 - thatkiddonovan (02/23/2013) [-]
a. you don't need a machine gun to hunt.
b. target shooting isn't a need. it's a hobby. I'm talking about practical needs.
c. that's one viable example but that's an isolated incident and if they had the guns with them and stayed in their stores during the riots then they were looking for confrontation.

How many shop owners, what kind of weapons, etc. ?

Tea party, gun-loving americans are beginning to act just as badly as radical muslim jihadists. it's ridiculous.
#591 to #581 - anonymous (02/23/2013) [-]
a. A semi-automatic rifle is not a machine gun.
b. A hobby is a legitimate use.
c. Because looting doesn't happen during every single natural disaster/riot in the US (and the UK as well). When the law can't help, guns are there to pick up the slack. And, no, defending your property and livelihood is not asking for confrontation. I don't know how you got that mentality.

I doubt I could pull up the figures on the specifics. I don't think anyone kept count, there was a riot.

And being politically active in defense of your rights is not being a radical Muslim jihadist. Let me know when gun owners start suicide bombing.
[ 575 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)