Welcome to Stupidville.. . 101 We are supposed not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few crazies... but the acts of a few American crazies is enough tn all  Welcome to Stupidville 101 We are supposed not judge all Muslims by the acts of a few crazies but American is enough tn
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (97)
[ 97 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
52 comments displayed.
#1 - ninetwenty
Reply +44
(04/12/2013) [-]
They aren't saying that all the Americans that owns a gun will go around and shoot people. It's a way of preventing more people from doing it. And the security has increased after acts of Muslims... So yeah, it goes both ways!
#5 to #1 - bakinboy
Reply -7
(04/12/2013) [-]
bla bla bla* long ass argument against you that i dot feel like typing out*
#6 to #5 - bakinboy
Reply -6
(04/12/2013) [-]
dont
#34 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
gee boy you sure are living the thug life.
#13 to #1 - dwrek
Reply -1
(04/13/2013) [-]
banning guns after Newtown is like banning planes after 9/11
#51 to #13 - ninetwenty
Reply +8
(04/13/2013) [-]
I was just pointing out that you can't compare the two things from the content to each other in that way. I don't have any opinions whether it's best to have guns or not.
> Plains = travel from one place to another
> Guns = made for killing

How can you compare those two to each other when it comes to banning them
#14 to #13 - jakatackka
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
Most people don't want to ban guns, though. Most people want more background checks. That's it, plain and simple.
#72 to #1 - grocer
Reply -1
(04/13/2013) [-]
So take away guns to stop shootings. Take away religion to stop religious killings! Sounds like a plan!
#74 to #72 - ninetwenty
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
Whose plan is that?
#15 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Banning guns just make it so that ONLY criminals have guns.
#52 to #1 - matthieu
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
exactly, after 9/11 security at airports went up massively. now all these shootings are happening they're increasing security by removing guns. also we aren't claiming all Muslims are suicide bombers just like we aren't calling all Americans crazy psychopaths. **** you OP, learn how to form a proper argument.
#7 - hudis ONLINE
Reply -9
(04/13/2013) [-]
From a "rest of the world"-viewpoint, this pointless drama over guns is getting ridiculous. Numerous other nations are fine (and have been for decades/centuries) without being obsessive about firearms, why do you have to make it such a big ******* deal?
#50 to #7 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
I had a cop pull his gun on me and my friend for littering. You don't know **** about America and how it works, stop trying to draw comparisons. Most of those places have high stabbing rates anyways. We are also attached to mexico.
#9 to #7 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +21
(04/13/2013) [-]
At first I wrote a really long exposition about the many reasons why American citizens need to be able to own guns and all the many things our government has been doing the past 30 years to limit our citizen's rights, but I got way too long-winded and preachy and I doubt you would have bothered to read the whole thing, so I'm going to try to do this the short way.

Gun ownership is one of the fundamental aspects of American culture, because before the birth of the country britain attempted to take our guns, once they knew that we were becoming disinfranchised with their rule. We kept and hid our guns, and with them poorly-trained civilian militias managed to throw off the shackles of tyranny and forge this country based on the (although somewhat hypocritical at the time) ideas of freedom and liberty. We wrote into our original bill of rights the right to bear arms and form militias in order to always be able to overthrow our government should it become the very tyranny we had fought so hard to remove. Citizen gun ownership is therefore sacred in American culture, as it is the right we use to protect all of our other rights, so whenever the government decides it wants to limit or restrict the lynchpin right, it incites a defensive fervor in us which is ingrained into our very identity as Americans.

That's why it is, as you put it, "such a big ******* deal".

davidavidson will want to read this post.
#38 to #9 - notafunnyguy
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
beautiful
#18 to #9 - domesticzombie
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
The way you worded it and presented it, was beautiful.
#10 to #9 - hudis ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
I realise what you are saying. We read North American history very extensively in my country, mostly I assume because it is so recent. However, over two hundred years have passed since the birth of the U.S. and times change. Many such changes alter the identity of a people little by little, a lot of people complain about it, but such is the way it is. Change is inavoidable and is, forgive me for the loose phrasing, part of what defines culture as a concept.

I may have written my previous post in an unnecessarily angry tone, and I apologise for that. Regardless, I hope that you understand the frustration that other people may feel at the idea of Americans putting such value in firearms; devices that are so obviously made for violence and are extremely lethal in the hands of anyone.

Intentions may be pure and cultural values can be forgiven, but to myself and many of my peers who share my views it is a matter of principle.
#30 to #10 - apollotaren
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
It's a matter of principle for us as well. Look at the nations that still oppress their citizens. Many of them are third world, but others are some of the most powerful nations in the world. Look at China and, to a certain extent (and much more 25 years ago), Russia. The world changes, but often people don't change with it. We may know more than we did four hundred years ago, but is there any less of a struggle for power going on? If a government decides that it's time for it to completely take over, what's going to stop it if not the people of the nation?

That's what the protection of our right to bear arms is for. It's not for hunting, it's not for sport shooting. It's so that we can prevent our own government from trying to remove our other rights. Do I think our government is likely to do this in the near future? No, not really. Most people don't. But that doesn't make it any less important. You don't plan a life around everything going perfectly and being happy all the time, and you don't plan a nation around the people in the government being perfect little angels. Doing either of those is a recipe for disaster.

Fixing gun violence isn't as much about the guns as it is about education and poverty. Educate the masses, lift the poor into the middle class, and violence/crime will drop with it. There are solutions to this other than taking away or limiting our access to firearms, solutions that will benefit the nation as a whole and in the long run instead of denying the rights of a significant portion of it while providing a band-aid fix. As long as there are guns around there will be people killed by guns, but that's true of anything. The question is if you're willing to risk your own safety, your "inalienable" rights, and the lives of your friends, family, fellow citizens, and those of your children and your children's children in the hope that a few psychopaths won't find other ways to kill people.

BTW, not meant to be mean. Just my thoughts on it all.
#64 to #30 - hudis ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Thank you. My opinion remains the same, but your post did help me understand a little better. I believe other than that, it's largely a question of what one is used to. Here (Sweden), we have rarely needed to defend our rights from the government or take measures to safeguard our freedom. Our enemies have always been on the outside, and the system and constitution we have in place, as well as a dismantled military, ensures that taking power from the people is near-impossible. That makes it very hard to sympathise with pro-gun ownership arguments, but like I said your post was not without good points.
#43 to #30 - unclebourbon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Oorah.

And what of the soldiers who died defending that constitution? The same thing they were all sworn in under? How dare anyone throw mud on their names, by crushing the constitution that they died for.
#60 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Except you don't ******* need guns anymore.

And no, you stupid ****, a poorly trained civilian militia will do absolutely ******* nothing if the current government decides "oh yeah lol I'm gonna do my best to make everyone in this country hate me as i seize ultimate power." Do you honestly think that's going to happen?

Even if it did, you would stand absolutely no chance. The military would obliterate any militia- and if the military was on the people's side, there would STILL be no need for civilians to have guns.

Your idiotic compulsive need for a firearm in order to keep your national identity does nothing but cause more and more pointless deaths as criminals get guns with absolute ease. Dumb ****.
#57 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
England has done well without guns but ok.
#46 to #9 - skyie
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
and you're one of them
#11 to #9 - davidavidson
Reply -3
(04/13/2013) [-]
The rabbit hole goes very deep my friends.. Ever wonder why all the anti-gun lobbiests are dual citizens of the US and Israel?

I'm going to be plagiarizing this for further use.
#20 to #11 - goodguygary
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Who's that pokemon?


It's Jewser!
#59 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
what do you plan on accomplishing with your anti jew crap?
#12 to #9 - axmurderingblender
Reply -6
(04/13/2013) [-]
na that's stupid.
#22 to #12 - davidavidson
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
troll detected
#3 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
That's not the point. If you want a gun to hunt, or to protect yourself, that is your legal right. However, if you need a high-capacity, 75x zoom scope, hollowpoint firing death machine to hunt? That's not necessary at all.
#44 to #3 - averagemcgee
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting at. It's about the ability of the American people to fight and overthrow the government if it is ever to become tyrannical.
#8 to #3 - icedmantwo
Reply +8
(04/13/2013) [-]
the only problem with that statement is most of that statement
>high capacity
please define more
>75x zoom scope
nobody would ever use anything even close to that retarded as that is approaching microscope level magnification
>hollow point firing
hollow points wont go through your walls and peg your neighbor accidently if you miss and are less effective than standard "ball" ammo for armored targets
>death machine
most of what you would consider "assault weapons" (an arbitrarily defined buzzword) or assault rifles are both semi automatic and fire smaller bullets than hunting rifles such as .223/5.56 vs .308, .30-06 or 7.62 variant ammo
#63 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Consider this:

You can ban guns in order to reduce gun related crime, that's the thinking behind it

How the **** do you ban people being Muslim without a major backlash you ******* retard?
#66 to #63 - azaman
Reply -1
(04/13/2013) [-]
It can't work anyway, criminals find ways to get guns, always have, always will. Just because its illegal doesn't mean a criminal won't do it, that's the point in a 'criminal'.
#71 to #66 - angelious
Reply +3
(04/13/2013) [-]
well if your argument is "it wont stop criminals from doing it"


then why do we even bother with laws? criminals will break them anyway.lets just throw laws out of the window and live in a sweet sweet anarchy :I
#75 to #71 - kafudamapla
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Thank you for that beautiful point
#94 to #71 - azaman
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Well, why not?
#85 to #66 - Jesusnipples
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Sure, it'll still happen, but it'll happen significantly less.
#67 to #66 - azaman
Reply -1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Oh great, i replied to an anon without noticing...****.
#48 - bananarking **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#54 to #48 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
No matter how valid the point, every time I hear someone refer to people as sheep I automatically want to punch them.
#56 to #48 - sparkyoneonetwo
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say it's that they change between then. It seems more like the different groups people come and go in waves around here. This could have been posted 10 hours latter and possible been thumbed to hell.
#27 - daboomee
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
#82 to #27 - PubLandlord
Reply -1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Yeah in the same way every country operates by having the government control of an army with tanks missiles and planes ... so the argument is kind of redundant.

Allowing hospitals to use morphine because they are trusted to have drugs that would otherwise be illegal.

And furthermore in most countries the "political elite" are democratically elected, therefore you have chosen them to have power, make decisions in the running of your country.

Seems like a "smart" quote but when you break it down it's just stupid subjective liberal thinking
#16 - imgood
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
Just cause ONE GUY killed a bunch of Jews, we can't put them in camps anymore...this world man...

inb4 red thumbs because I used logic in an arguement
#2 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
yeah, only both attacks were performed by americans.
#4 to #2 - darkjoker
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
#26 to #2 - gilfhunter
Reply +2
(04/13/2013) [-]
I found the retard...
#77 - mikeclay
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
America has been a hypocrite since before it was officially a country
#25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
His hair is the same color as the explosion O_o
#28 to #25 - zekeon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
batman did 9/11
#53 to #28 - reinbowxdash
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#33 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
wake up america!