AR15. . Like we mentioned before. the Henny Repeating Rifle is unavailable to civilians and for good 1' . We all know thath; civvies should ere gatt to lay thei
x
Click to expand

AR15

Like we mentioned before. the Henny Repeating Rifle is unavailable to civilians
and for good 1' . We all know thath; civvies should ere gatt
to lay their hands on, This is a with no spa ais
to speak of. It is made to put down . and mast ' ' " J
Magazine. 1860
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+979
Views: 63048
Favorited: 113
Submitted: 02/22/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to ontherun submit to reddit

Comments(721):

[ 721 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - charagrin (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.
User avatar #127 to #1 - jimimij (02/23/2013) [-]
Soon, hores of geese will be taken out with the AR-15. World hunger solved.
#2 to #1 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
*than
User avatar #79 to #2 - propanex (02/22/2013) [-]
Should change "GLORIOUS ANONYMOUS"
to
"GLORIOUS GRAMMAR NAZI"
#361 - boonmagicaltrevor (02/23/2013) [-]
oh hey and its a knife fight in the comments
of ******* course.
#231 - bluegmc (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.
#386 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
scumbag "condom," by 1967, slang, from scum + bag. Meaning "despicable person" is attested by 1971.

[url deleted]

Recoil magazine also wasn't around in the 19th century.
#85 - mankey (02/22/2013) [-]
Reminds me of my favourite Fallout 3 weapon. Lincoln's Repeater.
User avatar #130 to #85 - fatspartan (02/23/2013) [-]
Loved that gun, just wish the ammo was easier to find. Had to use the ammo smelter in the Pitt for most of the .44 ammo
User avatar #132 to #85 - dwoobie (02/23/2013) [-]
Thats because in real life Lincoln was given a personalized Henry rifle in 44 caliber.
#5 - drewbridge (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"
#90 to #5 - hetmartino (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 (02/23/2013) [-]
I now realise how butt hurt I sound
#142 to #5 - anon (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.
User avatar #330 to #5 - defensive (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.
User avatar #334 to #330 - drewbridge (02/23/2013) [-]
So was every other ******* gun ever made. I see some obvious detective work going on here. Grats, guys.
User avatar #336 to #334 - defensive (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.
User avatar #346 to #336 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #351 to #346 - defensive (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.
User avatar #347 to #346 - drewbridge (02/23/2013) [-]
*ok with
User avatar #342 to #336 - drewbridge (02/23/2013) [-]
So the companies made them specifically so the people they sell rifles too will kill other people, specifically. Ok.
User avatar #348 to #342 - defensive (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.
User avatar #357 to #348 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #362 to #357 - defensive (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 (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.
User avatar #539 to #534 - defensive (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.
User avatar #556 to #539 - cabbagemayhem (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.
User avatar #572 to #556 - defensive (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.
User avatar #582 to #572 - cabbagemayhem (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.
0
#712 to #582 - drewbridge has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #584 to #582 - defensive (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.
User avatar #713 to #584 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #739 to #713 - defensive (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.
User avatar #749 to #739 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #750 to #749 - defensive (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 **** .
User avatar #751 to #750 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #752 to #751 - defensive (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.
User avatar #753 to #752 - drewbridge (02/24/2013) [-]
It's not an overthrow. Defending themselves. You don't even need to kill anyone.
User avatar #595 to #584 - cabbagemayhem (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.
User avatar #598 to #595 - defensive (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.
User avatar #613 to #598 - cabbagemayhem (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.
User avatar #714 to #598 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #754 to #714 - defensive (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.
User avatar #755 to #754 - drewbridge (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.
User avatar #757 to #755 - defensive (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.
#37 to #5 - anon (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.
User avatar #262 to #37 - wiinor (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.)
User avatar #65 to #5 - anonymouzx (02/22/2013) [-]
The theory of evolution is old too, but hey we still use it.
User avatar #70 to #65 - retardedboss (02/22/2013) [-]
And adapt it. When we know it's wrong we change it.
User avatar #298 to #70 - spartusee (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.
User avatar #363 to #298 - retardedboss (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.
User avatar #396 to #363 - spartusee (02/23/2013) [-]
Isn't there a limited amount of change allowed in alleles?
User avatar #405 to #396 - retardedboss (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.
User avatar #413 to #405 - spartusee (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?
User avatar #711 to #413 - retardedboss (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.
User avatar #600 to #413 - kolsinder (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.
User avatar #157 to #5 - awesomenessdefined (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
#3 - teranin ONLINE (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.
User avatar #26 to #3 - srskate (02/22/2013) [-]
What am I missing?
#27 to #26 - teranin ONLINE (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.
User avatar #29 to #27 - srskate (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 (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 (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.
#153 - ofc (02/23/2013) [-]
A fact: The Henry Repeating Rifle was used by a few amount of soldiers in the Civil War and owning one gave you pride. The reason there weren't many soldiers that had the repeating rifle was because Lincoln was afraid that the soldiers would be firing too fast and use too much ammo, more than they had enough to afford.

Inb4 nobody cares
User avatar #172 to #153 - ubercripple (02/23/2013) [-]
As a history buff, I enjoyed this factoid. Thumb for you.
#174 to #172 - ofc (02/23/2013) [-]
Why thank you, I would thumb you up in return but I can't seem to be able to thumb people up or down... And if I spam the thumb up or down button it can endlessly go on, but resets after I press r or F5.
Why thank you, I would thumb you up in return but I can't seem to be able to thumb people up or down... And if I spam the thumb up or down button it can endlessly go on, but resets after I press r or F5.
#249 to #170 - lalalady (02/23/2013) [-]
If you really didn't care, why would you waste your time responding at all...
User avatar #264 to #249 - lukewarmpigeon (02/23/2013) [-]
i responded because i had a relevant image, i had no idea that anyone would get this butthurt, and if i'm already on this site i'm already wasting my time so what does that matter?
User avatar #171 to #170 - ofc (02/23/2013) [-]
I guess that doesn't count as nobody cares.. Touche.
#126 - mswisher (02/23/2013) [-]
What happeend to FUNNYjunk.... this new site POLITICALcrap is getting old fast
User avatar #302 - DrBobsPatient (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
User avatar #654 to #302 - grocer (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.
User avatar #383 to #302 - mrrkilla (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??
#418 to #383 - anon (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 (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.
User avatar #398 to #383 - DrBobsPatient (02/23/2013) [-]
Also, very few criminals buy their guns through legal means, so it won't affect them any anyway.
User avatar #402 to #398 - mrrkilla (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.
User avatar #404 to #402 - DrBobsPatient (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.
User avatar #409 to #404 - mrrkilla (02/23/2013) [-]
you're right again. Again, a difficult issue to press on because of so many outcomes and repercussions of different laws
User avatar #397 to #383 - DrBobsPatient (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.
User avatar #401 to #397 - mrrkilla (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.
User avatar #403 to #401 - DrBobsPatient (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
User avatar #406 to #403 - mrrkilla (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
User avatar #565 to #383 - cabbagemayhem (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 (02/23/2013) [-]
This does not help in 100% of shootings, where the guns are obtained illegally.
#307 to #302 - wudup (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.
User avatar #315 to #307 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/23/2013) [-]
So then prove him wrong with the correct sources. Simply saying "no that's wrong" is equally invalid
User avatar #314 to #307 - DrBobsPatient (02/23/2013) [-]
which one do you think is false?
#321 to #307 - fnerkfnerk (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.
#393 to #302 - anon (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!
#657 to #302 - goodpsize (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 (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 (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 (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.
User avatar #471 to #302 - pickledpee (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.
User avatar #333 to #302 - DrPeppir (02/23/2013) [-]
So ALL Canadians and Australians want gun rights back? Every single one of them.
Right.
User avatar #335 to #333 - DrBobsPatient (02/23/2013) [-]
Probably not all of them, but there are protests.
#355 to #335 - anon (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 ?
User avatar #416 to #355 - Zarke (02/23/2013) [-]
Equating Canadian/Australian firearms owners to militant racists. Good ******* job.
#356 to #335 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #514 to #302 - muhamidallea (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.)
User avatar #630 to #302 - nrhv (02/23/2013) [-]
actually you will literally never hear an australian bitching about their gun "rights"
#459 to #302 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
I'm Canadian. I call bs.
#427 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
Why are antiguns the biggest morons ever?
User avatar #469 to #427 - sodapops (02/23/2013) [-]
Because media has manged to stir up a panic, and they feel like they advocate, even accomplish a safer world if they push for gun bans. What rustles my jimmies the most is how few of the mass shootings actually are with "assault weapons".... And that an overwhelming majority of violent [gun related] crime is done with illegal weapons anyway.
#430 to #427 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"You can't hunt with that! You'll cut the deer in half!"
#432 to #430 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"That gun would leave nothing on the animal! It's not useful for hunting!"
#438 to #432 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"Only cops should have guns! They are trained to use them correctly!"
User avatar #442 to #438 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"Cops can control their weapon! They won't hurt anyone innocent!"
www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-usa-newyork-nypd-lawsuit-idUSBRE90M17820130123
User avatar #446 to #442 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"The gov't will never hurt it's own citizens!"
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths
#447 to #446 - LocoJoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"Clip(the term is magazine you ********* . learn it) restrictions will make it tough for people to get them and use them to kill muh babbys."
#453 to #447 - coolfuzzy (02/23/2013) [-]
samefag is same
User avatar #518 to #453 - Zarke (02/23/2013) [-]
No ******* **** , ******* .

That ain't a samefag. That's the same fag. He's making a point. He's not faking a discussion and circle-jerking himself. He's presenting his short snippets of sarcasm that support the point he's trying to communicate.
User avatar #577 to #446 - meierme (02/23/2013) [-]
sarcasm is strong with this one
User avatar #222 - screech (02/23/2013) [-]
so when this gun ban happens, nobody will ever get shot again. just like when they made cocaine illegal. nobody ever owned, bought, used, or overdosed on cocaine again. problem solved....
#271 to #222 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
Exactly.

The United States has ****** itself in the ass already by allowing such lenient gun laws after they were necessary. Really, the best they can hope for now is to find a middle ground between the two extremes of completely banning guns and letting their people run amok, shooting everything they see. I doubt it'll happen, though; I don't get into American politics much, but from what I've seen everybody clings to the far wall of one side and nobody is willing to make compromises. Correct me if I'm wrong and apologies if I am, though.
#287 to #271 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
A compromise should result in mutual gain. That'll never happen in the gun debate. For instance, what if I suggested getting rid of the NFA taxes in exchange for universal background checks? Or allowing fully-automatic firearms to be legally manufactured and sold for more expansive mental healthcare?

The definition of compromise in this debate is gun owners being stripped of what they can own at a slightly slower pace.
#309 to #287 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
I love you. We've "COMPROMISED" too far already, we gave up machine gun rights, SBR, SBS, AOW, suppressors, etc. etc. already. After them "ASSHAULT WEAPONS THAT CAN FIRE A HUNDRED BULLETS IN A SECOND" and "EXPLODE ON IMPACT" (fun fact, the .223/5.56 round the AR-15 uses is considered a varmint cartridge when used in a bolt action) It'll be all "FULLYSEMIAUTOMATIC DEATH WEAPONS" then "TACTICAL MILITARY STYLE SNIPER RIFLES", etc. etc. etc., until we're left with single shot .22 shorts and then they just confiscate those. All the while, criminals will still be able to have a full-auto shipped to their door.
User avatar #247 to #222 - benblei (02/23/2013) [-]
The intention of the assault weapons ban is not to totally eliminate violent crimes, but to reduce the violence in our country. Such an exaggeration is ignorant by itself.
User avatar #276 to #247 - magict (02/23/2013) [-]
Both the Vice President and the congresswoman pushing the bill in the House of Representatives have acknowledged the fact that it will do little to nothing to reduce violent crime.
#258 to #247 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
Assault weapons kill less people than hammers per year, this is about soccer moms who think every gun with any ergonomics is a WMD.
#44 - exploiterguyone (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.
User avatar #540 to #44 - cabbagemayhem (02/23/2013) [-]
1. Just because it wasn't against the law, does not mean the manufacturer sells it to civilians.
2. Irrelevant.
User avatar #6 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
I think that's the argument of the gun-owning nation. The AR-15 was designed to put down scumbags, and it is very good at what it does. Why would you want to take that away from good people who wouldn't hurt anyone with it?
-1
#9 to #6 - tyraxio has deleted their comment [-]
#11 to #9 - blakeford (02/22/2013) [-]
the second amendment wasn't created to protect hunters. it was created so that if our government oversteps its bounds we can revolt and defend ourseves against potential tyranny
#28 to #11 - teranin ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
actually it was created to maintain the militias used to prevent slave revolt, but it's still a damn law of the land.
actually it was created to maintain the militias used to prevent slave revolt, but it's still a damn law of the land.
#35 to #28 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
Absolutely false! You and Danny Glover have been smoking the same wacky weed that likes to re-write history.
#51 to #35 - teranin ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
hmm, well to be fair there is little in the way of empirical proof for either side of that argument, and congressional law scholars generally disagree to either direction. I guess I'll just take that to mean that trying to figure out what the intentions were of people living hundreds of years ago in a completely different world with a completely different mindset is ultimately futile, and hence moot. Regardless of the reasons for the inception of the 2nd amendment however, the fact is that it is supported in it's existence by the majority of americans, it has the convenient side-effect of keeping people armed against tyranny, it isn't the cause of mass shootings, simply the tool being used to carry them out, and ultimately any reduction in what people can legally arm themselves with will have no real impact on gun crime as a whole in this country. It's all a farce, and it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, much like the NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, and many other things our gov't has done in the past few decades.

But Government will always grasp for more power, because all humans desire it and a little taste is all it takes to become an addict, and inevitably all those without significant power will not like other people having that power, and so the cycle will continue until a truly benevolent version of humanity can arise, or until we all blow ourselves the **** up.

But that's just my opinion. Perhaps I'm simply old and jaded.
User avatar #603 to #51 - cabbagemayhem (02/23/2013) [-]
There's nothing futile about it. The fore fathers said a lot about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of it's experienced Patriots to prevent it's ruin."
- Samuel Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
- Patrick Henry

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
#706 to #603 - teranin ONLINE (02/23/2013) [-]
you do realize 2 of those quotes have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, and were about completely different topics right?
User avatar #734 to #706 - cabbagemayhem (02/23/2013) [-]
For having nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it expresses their beliefs in it very well.
User avatar #12 to #9 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
Something you need to know about scumbags: they don't usually target other scumbags. They like to target the good people who are less likely to hunt them down and give them columbian neck ties.
User avatar #64 to #12 - Ruspanic (02/22/2013) [-]
Well, actually a very large portion of murders and other violent crimes are linked to gang violence, so scumbags do target other scumbags.
I'm just saiyan.
User avatar #83 to #64 - Zarke (02/22/2013) [-]
So give them more guns and the problem solves itself, right?
User avatar #125 to #86 - Zarke (02/23/2013) [-]
At the same time, why don't we stop this gun control debate and focus on getting everybody laid. Constantly. Think about it: If we're too busy ******* , who's going to shoot anyone?
#128 to #125 - Ruspanic (02/23/2013) [-]
I like that idea.
I like that idea.
User avatar #131 to #128 - Zarke (02/23/2013) [-]
I nominate Zarke for world-leader. He promises that you will have vagina on your penis.
#13 to #12 - tyraxio (02/22/2013) [-]
Exactly, and that is why it is a risk to let firearms be legal. It allows the scumbags to shoot the good men.
#31 to #13 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
Wrong. In the US, there are over 300 million guns. Confiscating them from law abiding citizens means they now have no means to protect themselves from criminals and tyrannical governments and the crime and murder rates go up exponentially.
User avatar #14 to #13 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
Alright, so by your logic, if firearms were illegal then no criminal would use them in any crime. Let me ask you this:

Adam Lanza (The poster boy for the anti-gun movement) shot and murdered 20 children and 6 adults. That's 26 counts of murder in the first degree. Do you really think one more felony for having an AR-15 would have stopped him? Also, Connecticut already had an Assault weapons ban on the books.
#15 to #14 - tyraxio (02/22/2013) [-]
It's harder to get a gun in you can't get it locally. Sure, no problem visiting a neighbouring state or some **** , but if it was illegal in the whole country, the chance of him getting the gun would be infinitely smaller. I don't really care about all that stuff, and I'm not even American, but I just wouldn't like to be in a position to be afraid of potentially being shot to death.
#61 to #15 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
Look at the states like 50 countries, because that's basically what they are. If you cross into another country(state), you cannot legally buy a gun.

In the 50 countries, there's a huge, multi-nation black market spanning from those 50 countries into Mexico and SA. If all the countries make guns illegal, the black market still exists. This black market will not run out of weapons, as it makes them illegally. Similarly, the war on drugs in the US completely failed due to this.

If we ban guns, we leave the biggest black market in the world to sell guns to criminals like it's a candy shop while leaving citizens waiting for cops to take 15 mins to arrive at a crime. See: AU's huge increase in crime after banning guns. (And their black market is smaller)
#33 to #15 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
I understand your feelings, but it's well understood that an armed society is a polite one.
User avatar #18 to #15 - Keleth (02/22/2013) [-]
"Visiting a neighboring state" i don't know about your state, but in mine, you can't purchase a firearm unless you have proof of residence in that state.
User avatar #16 to #15 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
If you're not american then you should look into mass stabbings. They happen in china and other regions where there are total gun bans. Usually the targets are schoolchildren because they can't fight back against an adult.

Here's an example:
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100037122/three-mass-stabbings-of-children-in-a-month-what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-china/

Evil will always be evil, and it is up to us to keep the tools around we need to stop evil.
#17 to #16 - tyraxio (02/22/2013) [-]
Just saying. Start educating a population not to kill eachother rather than live in the Wild West and "kill or be killed".
#34 to #17 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
Mankind has been trying to do that since the beginning without any success.
Btw, the "wild west" was never very wild at all and that's an historical fact. You've watched way too many Hollywood westerns.
#36 to #34 - tyraxio (02/22/2013) [-]
I was using the Wild West as an analogy. Assuming people understood what I was talking about.
User avatar #20 to #17 - Keleth (02/22/2013) [-]
well unfortunately, i can't educate a population, but what i can do, is it bulleye 6/6 with a 45 longcolt about 20 yard out. If someone would like to take a chance at killing me, please go for it. If me and my buddy ever start this damn motorcycle shop we've been talking about, we will never get robbed cause i want every damn guy in there open/conceal carrying. 9/10 robbers are total pussies and sometimes they don't even load their gun. once they know your not scared of them they back the **** off usually. And I'll tell ya, I'm not scared of a damn thing, cause i bet i can out-shoot some dumb ass wanting my cash
#21 to #20 - tyraxio (02/22/2013) [-]
So, if they come into your shop and you know their guns are unloaded, then why would you want to shoot them? See, this is the problem. The bloodlust. People who would kill as long as they have the slightest excuse to do so.
User avatar #22 to #21 - Keleth (02/22/2013) [-]
i don't know their guns are unloaded, if i see them rack the slide and nothing is there then im gonna pistol whip that idiot, otherwise, rule 1 of gun safety, always assume the firearm is loaded
User avatar #19 to #17 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
Hey man, I'm with you. Unfortunately the guys up top aren't looking for the actual causes of crimes, they're just trying to change the tools they're committed with.
#184 - omgitztom (02/23/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVecBww1vcE   
   
Get your daily freedom boner here! Provided by Uncle Ted Nugent!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVecBww1vcE

Get your daily freedom boner here! Provided by Uncle Ted Nugent!
#370 - bigsaltyballs (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 (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.
#610 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
The amount of ignorant faggotry in the comments is absurd. Most of them don't have a single clue about the differences between guns, effectiveness at various ranges, ect. It's rather disappointing that these ignorant fools are the ones that have louder, more obnoxious voices getting stuff they don't understand banned.
User avatar #622 to #616 - Cilreve (02/23/2013) [-]
The amount of ignorant faggotry in the comments is absurd. Most of them don't have a single clue about the differences between guns, effectiveness at various ranges, ect. It's rather disappointing that these ignorant fools are the ones that have louder, more obnoxious voices getting stuff they don't understand banned.
#623 to #622 - Blasphemer (02/23/2013) [-]
Couldn't tell, didn't read much of them, so I don't care to disagree or agree ^^

Have a nice day.
User avatar #629 to #623 - Cilreve (02/23/2013) [-]
It's fine. I'm very passionate about this subject, and I only got in 2 pages before I couldn't take any more. I just hadn't logged in yet, and didn't care to after I popped :/
User avatar #618 to #616 - watermelonmcnigger (02/23/2013) [-]
How do we know you're mot the anon?
#619 to #618 - Blasphemer (02/23/2013) [-]
Check my earlier comment? I don't care about this particular topic. Nor I ever did, my fine sir.
Check my earlier comment? I don't care about this particular topic. Nor I ever did, my fine sir.
User avatar #620 to #619 - watermelonmcnigger (02/23/2013) [-]
sorry then sir.
#269 - killerblue (02/23/2013) [-]
/pol/junk
#531 - soycanadiense (02/23/2013) [-]
Here in Canada we have very strict gun laws... We can't own any automatic weapons at all... Pic semi related.
#592 to #531 - unusualrex (02/23/2013) [-]
Yeah and it sucks...
#593 to #592 - unusualrex (02/23/2013) [-]
From a fellow Canadian residing in Bantario.
User avatar #637 to #531 - thegamerslife (02/23/2013) [-]
Honestly I can't see a real reason for civilians to own Automatics other than suppressive fire, but when do you think you would really need that?
But I believe wholly in the right to own the same as the military infantry as was meant to be protected by the 2A.

Now Semi-auto I don't think there should be restrictions on the guns. mag caps, specific features, banning AR-15 platform, etc are all stupid ass laws that i hope never get passed again.

Wanna hear something ironic? Here at my local gun shop they have 4 M2's and none of them will be affected in any of these proposed AWB. just looks like pandering to me.

-A proudish American
[ 721 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)