AR15. .. 153 Years later the lever action rifle is the most popular hunting rifle design in the world with more game taken then every single other style of weapon combin AR15 153 Years later the lever action rifle is most popular hunting design in world with more game taken then every single other style of weapon combin
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (721)
[ 721 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
171 comments displayed.
#1 - charagrin
Reply +65
(02/22/2013) [-]
153 Years later the lever action rifle is the most popular hunting rifle design in the world with more game taken then every single other style of weapon combined.
#2 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
*than
#79 to #2 - propanex ONLINE
Reply -7
(02/22/2013) [-]
Should change "GLORIOUS ANONYMOUS"
to
"GLORIOUS GRAMMAR NAZI"
#127 to #1 - jimimij
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Soon, hores of geese will be taken out with the AR-15. World hunger solved.
#5 - drewbridge
Reply +53
(02/22/2013) [-]
> "The constitution was written hundreds of years ago, things have changed, it can be altered to fit today better."

> "Look at this quote supporting my argument from 150+ years ago, guiz"
#37 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
Absolutely wrong! Regardless of the age of the US Constitution, people and governments have not changed at all and neither has the reason to keep and bear arms.
#262 to #37 - wiinor
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
The first only 10 amendments shall not be infringed. The constitution has been changed a couple of times.(example: prohibition era of America.)
#90 to #5 - hetmartino
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
yes, because there is only one person that post all these arguments pro gun control. Anti-gun people agree to the idea but they may have different point of views why they want gun control.
#92 to #90 - hetmartino
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I now realise how butt hurt I sound
#142 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
You can be damn sure that a bible quote has been used at one point in this argument on the pro side.
#330 to #5 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Its not the argument itself, its the principle of the argument, the AR15 was not designed for hunting, it was designed to kill people.
#334 to #330 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
So was every other ******* gun ever made. I see some obvious detective work going on here. Grats, guys.
#336 to #334 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Other guns were made for hunting, and so gun made for hunting should be legal with proper precautions. But the AR15 was made for civilians to kill other people.
#346 to #336 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Anyway, not the point. Back when the second amendment was created, civilians had the same/very similar weapons to what normal government forces had.

I don't even want that today, I'm ok a watered down version, semi autos and not as high quality.
#351 to #346 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I can agree with that to a point, semi-automatics are a bit to much in my opinion though, a bolt action or a shotgun are good for hunting, which is all guns should be.
#347 to #346 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
*ok with
#342 to #336 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
So the companies made them specifically so the people they sell rifles too will kill other people, specifically. Ok.
#348 to #342 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Well what the **** else are you going to be using a semi-automatic rifle for? If you wanted a gun for hunting you would buy a rifle, self defense would be a pistol. I'm not saying that they would go out and kill people on the street, but for self defense it is a little over the top.
#357 to #348 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
We have boars in my state. I live in a suburban neighborhood. About 400 yards from my house, a 150lb+ wild boar was killed in the middle of the street. I've seen 2 others around, aswell. Coyotes too.

It's still a right. They can decide what to protect themselves with. 99.99% of people who buy an AR15 with a 30 round magazine are going to shoot at the range, train, or use it for self defense. And it works.
#362 to #357 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Well I dunno then, in my opinion its a little too much, but its your country so do what you want.
#534 to #362 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Pistols are only practical for self-defense if you're mobile. Otherwise, you need more power. I would recommend a 30 round semi-auto rifle with hollow point rounds. Some people prefer shotguns, but I don't think they considered multiple attackers. Anyway, that's all beside the point.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment to empower the people against the government at the time it becomes corrupt, not if but when.
#539 to #534 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I don't think it really matters if you are mobile or not, if you put 3 pistol rounds into an attacker, he is going down just as fast as if you had used a semi-automatic rifle.
#556 to #539 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
You thought? If you don't know what you're talking about, you should ask instead of assuming. Guns don't work like they do in the movies. One woman emptied her pistol into her home invader and he ran off, got into his car, and drove for several miles before crashing. If there were multiple attackers, she would have been screwed. I believe they recommend 6-8 rounds per attacker, but that's obviously just an estimate. Factoring in how likely you are to miss in a stressful situation, a 30 round magazine is generally the minimum you would want for three attackers. Again, that's not even the reason you need a gun. Don't throw away your rights just because you don't know why you need them.
#572 to #556 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, but I haven't murdered anyone recently. I'm sure most people couldn't walk of 3-4 shots to the chest or stomach. I think most attackers would run anyway if the person they were trying to rob started to shoot back at them, most people don't want to risk their lives for a couple hundred dollars.
#582 to #572 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Well, I think your assumptions are pretty normal for most people who don't own guns. Most people won't walk off 3-4 shots to center of mass, but a lot do. In the robbing scenario you mentioned, the attackers are likely to attack you if they get the chance rather than risk getting shot in the back. Again, none of that even matters. Even if completely useless for self-defense, the purpose is to prevent the much more tragic robbery by the government.
#712 to #582 - drewbridge
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#584 to #582 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Can't we just agree that the 2nd amendment is almost moot now, civilians will not create a successful uprising no mater what types of guns they have, they are simply to spread out and and with out some sort of command it would just be a few thousand people being subdued or killed by cops or the military.
#713 to #584 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
So basically, your solution is that if the government wants to attack us for whatever reason, we should just accept it and turn in any means of fighting back.

I can literally hear your argument turn to dust in the face of anyone who has a free will.
#739 to #713 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
I'm saying that all fighting back will do is get lots of people killed. Yes, there are a lot of people with guns, but without any form of command it will just be looting and killing innocent people in the streets, because most people would just see it as an opportunity to get free stuff. And you cannot 'literally' hear anyone's argument turning to dust because if you did then that would make you ******* insane.
#749 to #739 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
None of that is backed up by anything. We are a first world country. Any civilized person will not immediately resort to killing everyone and stealing. That **** may fly in new orleans where it's basically encouraged in the culture, but not with normal people.

Also, good job on the overeaction to my dust comment. Glad to know you're secure in your thoughts.
#750 to #749 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
I just don't like when people miss use it. But I digress, have you ever seen people in a time of panic? It doesn't matter where you are from, when the **** hits the fan most people are going to lose their minds and start wrecking ****.
#751 to #750 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
Maybe you and your family might be looting. Just about every well informed gun owner is going to be on the lookout for looters and people robbing things. A large amount of them are ex-military or just mentally sane enough to know what to do and not do, and they won't put up with stupid ******** like that. Infact, if there is a common enemy, people would work together.
#752 to #751 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
And also that, during this so called uprising, you will have lot of people sitting in their houses shooting anyone who comes in rather then doing the actual 'uprising' part. The thing is, the government isn't just one thing, it is an entity that is everywhere, which makes it hard for people to unite against it, hence the wanton destruction.
#753 to #752 - drewbridge
0
(02/24/2013) [-]
It's not an overthrow. Defending themselves. You don't even need to kill anyone.
#595 to #584 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Are you being serious? A few thousand people? Get the **** out of here, right now. Even if there were just a few thousand gun owners in America, out of the ten's of thousands of people in America, population size is irrelevant. The fact that an uprising could be very successful isn't even necessary. The 2nd Amendment has been doing its job for you for a long time without ever firing a shot. No, the 2nd Amendment is not anywhere close to moot.
#598 to #595 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
You think all the gun owners in america could all just become organised and make tactics to fight the government? No, it would all be looting and murdering civilians. Even if they could all make tactics and form up into ordered units then guess what, the government has ******* missiles and nukes and the army. And now you are going to say 'well the army can't get involved with something like this', well guess what, yes the army would get involved because the military leaders would be under threat too. They wouldn't just sit there. And what exactly has the second amendment been doing then? Keeping civilians armed? A great lot of help that's done.
#714 to #598 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
1. You are forgetting/don't know what most people in the military are like. You have obviously never, ever been around a soldier. If the government is ******* us over, 9 out of 10 guys will notice it. They are not mindless kill bots. They love guns and freedom as much as civilians, if not more so. Infact, most of them already are unhappy with the way things are getting done already.

2. Most local law enforcement might stick by their duty, but if we're getting screwed that bad from the gov, they will see differently.

3. If no-one abandons their position in the military or police, we have the second amendment there to protect ourselves.
#754 to #714 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
I ran out of space to reply. How are you supposed to get rid of a tyrannical government if everyone is either in their house with guns or destroying things at random? Which leads back to my original statement, the US citizens will never overthrow a government.
#755 to #754 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
Because we're not retarded. Well, most of us. Again, it's about defense. Defending ourselves from them. Overthrow? Replace it with what? Defense. It's about defense.
#757 to #755 - defensive
Reply 0
(02/24/2013) [-]
I don't think you quite understand what the point of the second amendment is. it is to get rid of a government by force. Not to turn the population into looters and people who just sit in their houses.
#613 to #598 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Oh, you're a woman. That explains how you can be persistently wrong, yet still jump to assumptions and carry on being assertive without actually being educated on the subject. Well, most gun owners are either self-taught in modern tactics, ex-military, current military, or are physically and mentally prepared to learn tactics quickly. Yes, the military would get involved, in fact much of it would reinforce the militia as they are us. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government sane everyday while you sleep. It has done a great lot of help. So much so, that the amount of violent crime it prevents every year, as well, pales in comparison.
#65 to #5 - anonymouzx
Reply +1
(02/22/2013) [-]
The theory of evolution is old too, but hey we still use it.
#70 to #65 - retardedboss
Reply +4
(02/22/2013) [-]
And adapt it. When we know it's wrong we change it.
#298 to #70 - spartusee
Reply -1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Hello. I am a creationist and would like an intelligent conversation with a reasonable macro-evolutionist. Not an argument. I would simply like to know why you believe it.
#363 to #298 - retardedboss
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Okay. Let me lay out the basic natural selection example.

First, you must be able to accept that offspring will have traits similar to the parents. With this at least I hope you can agree. Children look like their parents.

So that being accepted as a truth, lets take a look at giraffes.
Giraffes eat leaves, and to do so they must be able to reach them. Giraffes that have shorter necks might not be able to get enough to eat and will, as a result, die before it can reproduce.If it does manage to reproduce, it's child will have the same Short neck flaw as it's parent, and it too will be at a disadvantage.

So, over millions of years, short necked giraffes die and don't reproduce, while long neck giraffes thrive and have offspring that share their long neck goodness.

Those best adapted to their environment will live, and those that are not adapted cannot survive and don't reproduce. The end result is that the one that is alive now the most evolved. Evolution does not happen to one organism, but rather to a species over millions of years.

I hope I could be of some help in clarification. If you have any qualms with what I have laid out, please voice them. This theory is only one in name, as is the theory of gravity. It is pretty much taken as fact.
#396 to #363 - spartusee
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Isn't there a limited amount of change allowed in alleles?
#405 to #396 - retardedboss
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Oh derp. I left out mutations.

anyway, DNA is very complex. There is more to alleles than AA and Aa and aa.

And even with any limiting factor in the number of genetic recombinations (which is huge) there is still the chance that something can go wrong when the DNA is being copied. This can result in a mutation either good or bad. If it's bad, no children and dead. If it's good it will survive and reproduce and spread it's new genetic code.

Boom. Keep in mind though, I am by no means an expert biologist, my understanding is pretty basic.

If you are genuinely interested in it, and not just looking to prove some point, I would recommend doing a bit of googling and read some Wikipedia. You'll learn more there than I could tell you.
#413 to #405 - spartusee
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
No no no, I am enjoying your help. I am not trying to be converted. Just trying to understand 80% of the worlds beliefs. But besides that, I read in my biology book that there is no evidence for good mutations. It is read that mutations can not add but destroy. It when on to talk about virus immunities. If you can not go further with you analogy then that is ok. Also in case you care the reason I am a creationist is: I think that if I am wrong I have done no harm and simply die. But if I am right i am rewarded, so why not? Also when you were in early school were you taught this theory?
#711 to #413 - retardedboss
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
There most certainly are good mutations. But nothing but the environment decides what is good or bad. Mutations are random. Almost all mutations you can observe in us (mutations from our ancestors) are good for our environment. If ever a proto human had a bad mutation, it would die and not carry on.

There are also mutations that don't effect odds of survival, and you can still see them today. Hair and eye color are both mutations, but because they have no impact on out ability to survive, all variations can be seen today. Someone with brown eyes is genetically different from someone with blue eyes.
#600 to #413 - kolsinder
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
If that's your rationale behind being a creationist, you do realise that there are literally dozens of other religions out there, right? As far as beliefs are concerned, I know plenty of Christians who support and confirm the theory of evolution. Besides, no one's forcing you to "cause any harm". Sorry for preaching but it is my belief that no one should ever be scared into believing anything under any circumstances.
#157 to #5 - awesomenessdefined
Reply +2
(02/23/2013) [-]
So what the other guys are saying is
>This quote is 150+ years old, things have changed
>The constitution was made hundreds of years ago and it suports me guiz
#302 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +34
(02/23/2013) [-]
fun facts:
1. Aura shooting was the only theater in the area that didn't allow concealed weapons
2. Sandy hook school was a "gun free zone"
3. Clackamas town shooting was stopped because someone pulled a concealed weapon on the shooter
4. Hammers kill more people than "assault rifles"
5. The KKK started out as a gun control group
6. Australians and Canadians want their gun rights back
7. England wants to ban chef knives because after their gun ban, stabbings have skyrocketed
#307 to #302 - wudup
Reply -15
(02/23/2013) [-]
More than half of those are patently false... I'm guessing you didn't source a single one of those "facts", and likely are just parroting what you were told by a friend or read on the internet.
#315 to #307 - durkadurka ONLINE
Reply +10
(02/23/2013) [-]
So then prove him wrong with the correct sources. Simply saying "no that's wrong" is equally invalid
#314 to #307 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +4
(02/23/2013) [-]
which one do you think is false?
#321 to #307 - fnerkfnerk
Reply +3
(02/23/2013) [-]
1. Easily proven. Google
2. Nearly all schools are "gun free" zones. This despite the fact that the deadliest school killing in US history happened in Bath Township in 1927 using dynamite.
3. Google
4. True. Even true if you include "assault weapons" by the loosest definitions.
5. KKK wanted to keep guns out of the hands of black people. If you support gun control, you support the last remaining jim crow laws. Google
6. Subjective, but people probably become very pro-gun after getting mugged with a knife.
7. Again, google: Britain + stab proof knife. then hang your head in shame.
#383 to #302 - mrrkilla
Reply -14
(02/23/2013) [-]
All we have to do is ban semi auto guns, have background checks on everyone purchasing guns, and have a national database for everyone who owns guns.

Whats silly is that not one gun owner wants any of these choices. Seriously? You have such a horrible criminal record to not be allowed to own a gun and you're so ******* afraid of the government "tracking" you??
#398 to #383 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +7
(02/23/2013) [-]
Also, very few criminals buy their guns through legal means, so it won't affect them any anyway.
#402 to #398 - mrrkilla
Reply -1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Stricter gun laws, preventing the sale of gun laws. Its difficult to have laws preventing criminals from getting guns. The US has been saturated with so many guns, its easily accessible by anyone because of people selling their own.
#404 to #402 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +4
(02/23/2013) [-]
yeah and what do you think will happen if strict gun laws pass? civilians wouldn't have them and there would be plenty on the black market from drug cartels in mexico. they have plenty of guns and drugs. we have a demand for drugs, so they fill the supply, they can easily do the same with guns.
#409 to #404 - mrrkilla
Reply -1
(02/23/2013) [-]
you're right again. Again, a difficult issue to press on because of so many outcomes and repercussions of different laws
#397 to #383 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +2
(02/23/2013) [-]
Everything. I don't want the government to know everything about me and what I own. I don't want a "big brother".

When you're an adult you should have the right to make your own decisions instead of having "permission" by the government.
#401 to #397 - mrrkilla
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
lol "big brother" is what uneducated ******* rednecks use to say when they think Obama is trying to take their precious guns away from them. I wish I had bought stocks in those gun companies in 2008 before he won. I would be ******* rich.

So when you register your vehicle and giving them any personal information with the government, do you feel the same way? you're tracked no matter what anyway. The only people who need to be worried are people who are organizing crime.
#403 to #401 - DrBobsPatient
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
and like i said, about 8% of people who use guns for crimes buy their firearms through legal stores. People aren't afraid about registering cars because 1. you're not limited to what car you can/cannot buy, 2. you can't fight against potential tyrannical government 3. it's not in the bill of rights to have a car. I can discuss this more in tomorrow. i'm too tired lol
#406 to #403 - mrrkilla
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Yeah you're right as well. Its a difficult situation to try to discuss because there are many different outcomes to look at and so many people effected. Plus, we're funnyjunk, not the usual political discussion board.. lol nite
#565 to #383 - cabbagemayhem
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Have you not considered that a national database does nothing to stop shootings, only to make rounding up guns easier?
#702 to #383 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
This does not help in 100% of shootings, where the guns are obtained illegally.
#418 to #383 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Because semi autos are super dangerous compared to bolt action. I have 2 that I use for hunting but semi auto is just convenient, not super effective. I can fire 5 6,5X55 in 3 couple of seconds with my bolt action, and change mag in 2. The whole gun scare is dildos and you are a snivelling coward.
#422 to #418 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
The sarcasm didn't carry over well enough when I accidently a period instead of a question mark in the first sentence... My point still stands, guns are not dangerous at all compared to, for example, cars. And it's definitely not the most used murder weapon.
#657 to #302 - goodpsize
Reply -2
(02/23/2013) [-]
that's retarded pro gun arguing:
1 & 2 is just stupid. Just because it was a gun free school/theater doesn't mean the shooter was unable to buy weapons. It's easy as **** to bring them in those places.
3. it might have been stopped by a weapon, but if there were no guns to begin with, it would never even have happened.
4. Sure it's a problem that hammers and clubs kill many people, but how does that in any way mean that guns are safe?
5. okay so if you want gun control, you become a racist psycopath? I don't really understand your argument.
6. yeah some might want other their gun rights back, but not the majority doesn't.
7. stabbings did increase but the overall kill rate fell, and what's the problem with banning monster **** knives in the public?

I mean there seems to be a huge problem with guns in the states compared to Europe and I think it's because everybody has the possibility to use guns violently pretty much
#710 to #657 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Hey ********,
1. The shooters was able to purchase a weapon and AVOIDED CURRENT GUN CONTROL LAWS.
2. The shooter took the guns from his mom's safe and killed her, carried a gun illegally, broke into a school, illegally, and then started killing people, illegally.
3. People will always have their means. There was a massive school breakin in china where someone with a knife mamed 28 kids. criminals will have their ways
4. guns are safe to those who went through firearm safety course, which is mandatory for any gun owner. I take it you never fired a firearm before?
5. States that no good things come from gun control. there's always something deepr involved
6. maybe not the majority, but they're tired of cops coming after the crime has been committed
7. overall kill rate has stayed the same. They already banned knives in public, they're wanting to just get rid of them all together.

Do some ******* research.
#699 to #657 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, If I'm a crazy asshole who wants to kill people, not having a gun will stop me from doing it. Give me a break. People say "At least if they have a knife, you can still fight back." What a joke.
#701 to #699 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Also, I"d like to point out that the overall killings in the UK did NOT go down. Their violent crime is through the roof.

If hammers kill more people than guns, It means banning guns will change my weapon of choice. You are obviously an idiot who can't put 2 and 2 together to form a decent argument against what you are saying. And your number 6? Completely wrong. Some don't want guns back but it is a FACT that the majority do, whether they want guns or not is something different, but they all want the right to own one.
#333 to #302 - DrPeppir
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
So ALL Canadians and Australians want gun rights back? Every single one of them.
Right.
#335 to #333 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +8
(02/23/2013) [-]
Probably not all of them, but there are protests.
#356 to #335 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
********.
#355 to #335 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
are u even **** u "not all of them but there are protests" thats like saying
hey yo, germany wants to return to be nazis
havnt u seen the skinheads ?
#416 to #355 - Zarke
Reply +5
(02/23/2013) [-]
Equating Canadian/Australian firearms owners to militant racists. Good ******* job.
#393 to #302 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
FALSE, Canadians and Australians don't use guns because they are too busy fighting off the crazy wilderness like MEN.
ONLY GUNS THEY NEED ARE BICEPS AND TRICEPS!
#459 to #302 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I'm Canadian. I call bs.
#471 to #302 - pickledpee
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I know for a fact that most Canadians don't want their firearms back. There may be a small minority that protests and whines about their lack of guns, but a majority of Canadians prefer the laws that are already in place.
#654 to #302 - grocer
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I'm from the UK, and everyone is scared of gangs of teenagers as they usually have knives. Police won't stop and search them because they would have to fill in too much paperwork.
#514 to #302 - muhamidallea
Reply +2
(02/23/2013) [-]
I am Australian and i couldn't care less that i can't use a gun. My step brother has gone through all the appropriate laws and regulations to be able to obtain a gun and he just sits there all day shooting cans and other **** laying around. Guns are either for people who want them for killing or for toys. ( And i think we all know guns are NOT toys.)
#630 to #302 - nrhv
Reply +2
(02/23/2013) [-]
actually you will literally never hear an australian bitching about their gun "rights"
#24 - ifightfortheuser
Reply +29
(02/22/2013) [-]
#39 to #24 - heartlessrobot ONLINE
Reply -9
(02/22/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#42 to #39 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
You clearly don't.
#40 to #24 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
i dont know if you ever tried to kill anyone with one of those, but its actually quite hard..

with love from
-Homicidal Maniac
#81 to #40 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
Not really. They're heavy and they've got a decent edge on their bottom.
#48 to #24 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
i think i'd rather put out the fire immediately, rather than having to wait until my house is burnt down for the fire fighters to arrive.
#54 to #48 - Ruspanic
Reply +5
(02/22/2013) [-]
Exactly. What he's saying is he'd rather just shoot or scare away the mugger/burglar/rapist/etc and avoid being victimized than wait for the police to show up.
#49 to #24 - drastronomy
Reply +1
(02/22/2013) [-]
Because fire extingushers cannot be used to kill people at range.
#58 to #49 - anon
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
I can tell you why that's wrong.
#50 to #24 - xzynth
Reply +1
(02/22/2013) [-]
none are made for killing, but saving lives. Not the same man.
#62 to #50 - biggrand
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
all our lives we have ben told that a gun has to be used to killsomeone/ protect someone. Why the **** can't we just embrace a decent piece of mechanical technology?
#53 to #50 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
Guns are used for saving lives, too.
#60 to #53 - gggman
Reply +3
(02/22/2013) [-]
made for saving lives by taking them
#67 to #60 - Ruspanic
Reply +2
(02/22/2013) [-]
Well, sometimes.
It's not always necessary to fire a gun in order to defend yourself, since pointing a gun at the guy or even having a gun in your possession is enough to deter many criminals. Hell, even the knowledge that many people in your area (not you specifically) are armed is enough to serve as a deterrent.
Even if you do fire it, there's no guarantee that you'll kill your target, and you probably don't need to. If the guy is mugging you with a knife, shoot him in the leg and you can run away without killing him.

Even if self-defense does result in the death of the attacker, there's such a thing as justifiable homicide.
#73 to #60 - Zarke
Reply +1
(02/22/2013) [-]
Trust me, if there were a more reliable, non-lethal way of stopping an attacker, the vast majority of people would be all over it. Until then, Tasers are one-shot items, stun-guns require you to be in bludgeoning/raping distance, and if you're being attacked, odds are the attacker feels they're capable of taking you on, so forget hand-to-hand combat.
#97 to #73 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Rubber bullets, bean bags, etc....
#124 to #97 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Those are crowd-control measures, not self-defense measures. If you can find me evidence that people have reliably stopped attackers (particularly the sufficiently enraged, determined, or drug-fueled variety) with bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets, I may reconsider my previous point.
#95 to #60 - Blargosnarf
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Kill or be killed, basic rule of survival. Are you going to allow your opponent the upper hand by refusing to own a handgun while they come with a rifle? Sure, lemme just cock my bow and arrow- ooooh... I've been shot in a literal fraction of the time it would take to retaliate.
#98 to #95 - gggman
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I'd say something but i like comment 97
#66 to #60 - duudegladiator
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. People can brandish a gun and instantly the attacker will run for their lives. Its only when the person is going to be attacked that it is kinda required to defend themselves and shoot the attacker.
#77 to #66 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
That's the ideal situation, but not everyone runs. If you present arms, you have to be ready to pull the trigger. The moment you draw, you're bluffing. What will you do if they call your bluff?
#84 to #77 - duudegladiator
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
Thats a good point, that is why people need to train before even buying a weapon.

Since i have shot weapons, and have taken courses, i would know that even shooting the ground in front of their feet would be enough to break their determinedness and make them run, but if i really had to shoot THEM, it would be in the lower leg/arm. Nothing to kill them, but to definitely wing them.
#103 to #84 - fuzzysixx ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
The sad part is, some prosecutes will try to charge you with stupid charges like torture, and the criminal could sue you. I think it is better now, but a few years ago in Tucson you shoot to kill or face to consequences.
#709 to #53 - xzynth
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
but made for killing.
#728 to #709 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
so?
#181 to #24 - mattmanhemi
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
thats actually an interesting perspective, except there is no downside to fire extinguishers, but there is for guns
#354 to #24 - spysappinmysasha
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Im kind of on the fence about the whole gun thing so push me either way. But arguments like this are completely invalid. Pro gun people are always like "YEAH WELL PEOPLE WILL USE ROCKS AND CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO" yeah but those things werent built for the specific function of killing. Anything built for the job will perform said job to a certainly higher standard than something that isnt.
#605 to #24 - kolsinder
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
I've thought about it and alas, my conclusion still remains intact; what a ludicrous comparison. We were debating gun control laws in America a few weeks ago at my school and honestly, some of the pseudo-cynical-metaphorical arguments put forward were ridiculous. If I had to choose, I'd say that the apex on the mound of stupidity was reached when someone tried lifting a desk to "prove a point" as apparently, desks are tantamount to guns in terms of danger to humans.

Obviously an outright ban on guns is far-fetched and extreme, but why not increase gun regulation just a tiny bit? A video popped up on Youtube the other day in which a bloke literally got handed a gun after buying something innocuous, like a pair of trainers and yet
there are still those who genuinely believe that gun control wouldn't be a preventive measure.
#45 to #24 - Happiness
Reply +2
(02/22/2013) [-]
Ive seen many stupid comments on FJ in my time...but you have reached a new level of dumb
#107 to #24 - luidias
Reply +7
(02/23/2013) [-]
fire hydrants can't be used to START fires. they only put them out.
in contrast, guns can be used for self-defense, but they can also be used for the very crimes that they are said to protect against.

If guns only worked in self-defense situations, there'd be no school shootings or gun-related crimes, and no one would have a problem with guns anymore. unfortunately, that is not the case, and murderers and psychopaths can use guns to commit crimes. However, while a criminal could kill with a gun, an arsonist couldn't start a fire with a fire extinguisher. Therefore, the fire hydrant comparison is flawed.
#41 to #24 - omgroflzomg
Reply +15
(02/22/2013) [-]
So....... whens the last time a school got attacked by a dude with fire extinguishers?   
   
inb4 red thumbs, I dont really care about gun control. Just had to point out a flaw.
So....... whens the last time a school got attacked by a dude with fire extinguishers?

inb4 red thumbs, I dont really care about gun control. Just had to point out a flaw.
#575 to #41 - cabbagemayhem
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
The pic only refutes the foolish argument that if you don't need it, ban it. Of course, they are very much needed, as has been iterated countless ways in the comments.
#63 to #41 - stillnotbob
Reply -1
(02/22/2013) [-]
It's an analogy ya dingus
#89 to #63 - omgroflzomg
Reply +10
(02/23/2013) [-]
I understand that.... but guns and fire extinguishers aren't really interchangeable...
#301 to #89 - againsthomos
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Yeah they are. Who needs guns, when the police will arrive after everyone's been shot by a criminal owning an illegally possessed gun?
#78 to #41 - Zarke
Reply -3
(02/22/2013) [-]
You've picked one up before, right? Those things are excellent bludgeons.
#625 to #78 - rakoom
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
But its not common for people to even consider using them for other than... Say... Self-defence. People just don't think about them that much otherwise.
#718 to #625 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I just thought of it, and I'm perfectly sane.
#719 to #718 - rakoom
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
We're discussing the topic. Of COURSE you thought of it.
#720 to #719 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
And of 7 billion people in the world, I can't be the only one who thought "You see that big, heavy red canister? I bet it'd be an excellent bludgeon."
#721 to #720 - rakoom
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I've thought about kicking an old lady into a pond with the ducks she's feeding. Doesn't mean that I'm thinking about such things on a daily basis, nor does it mean that I'm crazy.
#722 to #721 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Nor does it mean I'm crazy. I mean, I'm sane.

But what of the insane ones who act on these thoughts? I be a few old ladies have been kicked into duck ponds over the years.
#723 to #722 - rakoom
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Doesn't mean that it was insane people that did it either. If the answer to the original question was if only insane people would use a fire-extinguisher as a bludgeoning-tool then no. But the average person don't go looking for his/her fire-extinguisher when he/she hears a burglar. They COULD take it, but if they find something else, say... A frying pan first, then they'd use that instead.

And crazy people don't always kill people with common household objects. Some do, some wild and irresponsible people also do, but no typical group of people.
#724 to #723 - Zarke
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
And why would they choose a frying pan over a fire extinguisher? Frying pans are awkward.
#725 to #724 - rakoom
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
They have a handle. That's why the 'common man/woman' would think 'hey, I'll use this as a weapon!' But my point is that people would use if if they saw it when they felt threatened.
#522 - mishaestrin
Reply +7
(02/23/2013) [-]
#606 to #522 - ruinsage
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
This image has expired
the constitution also said that it was a mans right to own slaves...

Maybe it's time to reassess blindly following a 200 year old piece of legislation
#624 to #606 - noseses ONLINE
Reply +3
(02/23/2013) [-]
yeah, and while we're at it. lets take out fair trail, trial by jury, and all those other things that gave power to the people.
#615 to #606 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
The constitution was ammended in the 1800s to allow for freedom and citizenship for all americans of any race. It was never ammended to take away gun rights.
#612 to #606 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Show me where in the constitution it says there was a right to own slaves.
#614 to #612 - ruinsage
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
search slavery and constitution. Slavery isn't mentioned by word, but it is heavily implied.

TBF, they did erase that part (it only took a civil war to do it, but still)
#621 to #614 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Yes there were laws in the constitution that regarded slavery, the three fifths compromise, laws on importing other persons and what have you but there isn't a section that states that people have a right to own other people.
#668 to #522 - mrnoodlez ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
Every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, how could that possibly be misconstrued?
#527 to #522 - mishaestrin
Reply +25
(02/23/2013) [-]
#231 - bluegmc
Reply +21
(02/23/2013) [-]
In the United States when the constitution was designed and the second amendment was written it was made so that all citizens should have access to any firearm they wanted to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, not just to hunt. Don't tell me how I don't need that many bullets to put down a deer.
#3 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +16
(02/22/2013) [-]
...Recoil Magazine. We're supposed to care why? You may as well have posted a quote from James K Polk for all the credibility this silly image has.
...Recoil Magazine. We're supposed to care why? You may as well have posted a quote from James K Polk for all the credibility this silly image has.
#26 to #3 - srskate
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
What am I missing?
#27 to #26 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/22/2013) [-]
I dunno, are you missing something? He's arguing in favor of gun control with this post, he's using something retarded with little to no credibility to support his case, and he's a disgrace.
I dunno, are you missing something? He's arguing in favor of gun control with this post, he's using something retarded with little to no credibility to support his case, and he's a disgrace.
#29 to #27 - srskate
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
I thought he was arguing against it.
As in, see? Its not just the current government that doesn't like guns. Its the older governments too.
#32 to #29 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/22/2013) [-]
regaredless of if he is supporting gun rights or against them, though, a quote from a 150 year old magazine writer has exactly ******** to do with anything that would involve credibility, intelligence, or a worthwhile opinion.
regaredless of if he is supporting gun rights or against them, though, a quote from a 150 year old magazine writer has exactly ******** to do with anything that would involve credibility, intelligence, or a worthwhile opinion.
#30 to #29 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/22/2013) [-]
That's not the way I took it... but it is possible.
That's not the way I took it... but it is possible.
#370 - bigsaltyballs
Reply +14
(02/23/2013) [-]
no one will ever understand why we have ar15s. yea we dont need them but its just a nice comfort that we can use them. sort of like tv and ipods; we dont need them but we have adapted our selves around them to such an extent that we "need" them.

tl;dr: we just have them because **** people in general.
#381 to #370 - shinytiger
Reply +4
(02/23/2013) [-]
also, if we were to overthrow our goverment, our petty hunting rifles and shotguns would have little affect on tanks, not saying a ar15 would be much better but still, we have to protect our ability to overthrow them if need be.
#261 - meierme
Reply +14
(02/23/2013) [-]
#283 to #261 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Last time I checked, you don't need freedom at all.
You don't need the luxuries of modern times.
You don't need to live or have a life.
Last time I checked, millions have died for these rights, and I see those like you who would pervert their sacrifice and the meaning of the constitution, such a fool.
The constitution is timeless until the great shift in paradigm, and doesn't only apply to a certain race, clique or type of person.
Wait until you confiscate all the guns from every law-abiding citizen in America.
Watch the crime rate sky-rocket and see the blood spill everywhere, you seem to be numb to the true intent of the 2nd amendment.
#292 to #283 - meierme
Reply +2
(02/23/2013) [-]
I'm not sure if you are pro gun rights or gun control. But this pic is for our rights, it means i don't need a AR15 its my right to have one
#320 to #292 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Pro-rights.
Its not a NEED for individuals, but its a really, really good idea to have one, or some other law-abiding citizen that possesses a weapon of sorts.
I believe that by law a single pistol should be placed in every US home with residents with no violent crime on their record or an unjustified use of guns on their record.
Oh and its rather hard to interpret the photo exactly, but I honestly think that its a need that we all have atleast a small weapon in our homes, while keeping it in a proper place, whether it be bearing it or keeping in a safe of sorts.
I believe that exact thing has been done in some city in the southeast...
When I asked an officer (at my school) about his opinion on gun control and he said something to the contexts of, "I don't think its right, what happens when only the bad guys or criminals are the only ones on the streets who have guns?" Implying he and his force would probably be overwhelmed if the law abiding citizen would be unable to defendhimself.
#326 to #320 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
i completely agree! i have a collection myself and am a former marine. i know the importance of having one
#308 to #261 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
I don't need free speech, but it's nice to have it.
#313 to #308 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
you guys are completely missing the point of the pic
#316 to #313 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
Then there might be something wrong with the pic, not everyone else.
#318 to #316 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
lmao wtf do you think it means?
#322 to #318 - drewbridge
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
That we don't "need" firearms like the one on the flag.
#329 to #322 - meierme
Reply +1
(02/23/2013) [-]
it says "last time i checked its not the bill of needs" as in i dont need an AR15 its my right to have one
#415 to #329 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#530 to #415 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
wow, another liberal who thinks he can try to get his point across by name calling. well i will take the higher road on this one.

and yes you can purchase just about any weapon you want given the correct licensing. will cost you allot of money and time but is possible and that includes missiles, and RPGs. I dont know about that post office thing but the only reason they were able to make the air force is because they made it a division of the army, just like the marines are a division of the navy.

According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

and i will keep my hot dog intact thank you very much
#590 to #530 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#588 to #530 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#587 to #530 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#601 to #587 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
first of all, creating the air force was by no meant unconstitutional so that didn't help your point by any means. next i used Cornell not wiki. as for missiles for me, legally your right me personally can not own one quite yet, need to get licensed first but once i have the $5,000 a year to own the license and go through the courses i can, along with fully automatic machine guns. next the government can pass what they need to pass using loop holes, such as making a division of the army. there's nothing saying they cant. just like there's nothing saying what arms we are allowed to bear. i will sport my AR15 till the day i die, if that day involves a civil war fighting for my rights so be it, but I along with the 235,675,000 american gun owners will not let this happen with out a fight. these are the same rights i have fought for, for the last four and a half years of my life fighting for. something some one like you would never dream of doing. watching your friends die in front of you because of your country's ideals, makes you cherish every right he died for.
#730 to #601 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#332 to #329 - drewbridge
Reply -1
(02/23/2013) [-]
It puts out a very anti-gun styled vibe/message.
#380 to #332 - anon
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
he is either too stupid or a master troll

everyone antigun keeps saying you dont need an ar-15 so it should be banned

but its called the bill of rights, you dont need them, but you have a right to exercise them

#338 to #332 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
that's funny because i got it off of a pro-gun website
#548 to #261 - meierme
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
even the feds admit banning weapons will not stop crime www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-gun-laws-wont-slow-crime/
#44 - exploiterguyone
Reply +14
(02/22/2013) [-]
******** for two reasons:
1) Prior to 1934, there were no restrictions on what weaponry an American could buy

2) No soldiers during the civil war were actually issued these rifles. They had ot buy them out of their own funds, as civilians.
#540 to #44 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(02/23/2013) [-]
1. Just because it wasn't against the law, does not mean the manufacturer sells it to civilians.
2. Irrelevant.