Muricaaaa. 100 % not OC Tags. ONE CHILD IS HOLDING SOMETHING THATS BEEN BANNED IN AMERICA TC) PROTECT THEM. We won' t sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest You
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (1290)
[ 1290 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#13 - comradvlad
Reply +498 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Using one retarded law to justify the creation of more retarded laws....
User avatar #715 to #13 - gorginhanson
Reply -13 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
That was my comment #710
I forgot that I wasn't logged in
User avatar #753 to #715 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
the only difference is a child could walk into a store and buy a kinder but not a weapon......
User avatar #758 to #753 - gorginhanson
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Good point.
What you're saying is that they wouldn't let a child buy a weapon.
Ok well how about this, how about don't let the child buy a kinder egg?
And while you're at it, why not check for mental instability before you sell a weapon to that guy muttering under his breath, or for that matter, to that normal looking guy with a history of mental illness.


I don't usually say this, but damn I'm good.
User avatar #849 to #758 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Except it is illegal for any federally licensed dealer to sell to the mentally ill. The problem is, records of mental illness do not show up for very many states when a background check is ran because such records are kept separate. Even if the dealer questions your mental health, if you pass the check they can not refuse the sale once you pass.

www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns

Has a good article concerning the NICS. The system is in place, the problem is, the system has never been fully realized and barely attempted at completing. Many states do not submit mental illness documentation to the NICS, and without upkeep from the State side, it will sadly remain useless. Though it has accounted for 1.5 million guns from being sold to individuals that should not possess them according to article.
User avatar #859 to #849 - gorginhanson
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Are you trying t argue that background checks are 100 percent useless?


Because if they aren't, maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities about how fast you can get a gun in your hand versus national safety

and if you ARE saying that, you're going to need a heck of a lot more evidence to show it
User avatar #881 to #859 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Did I ever once say the system was useless? No, I said the system was flawed. How fast I can get a gun in my hand versus national safety? Now you are a slippery slope.

First off, background checks are in place, but if the States themselves do not support and update the part that is their responsibility, it becomes useless. Yes, a background check will still stop criminals from passing.

But say I was a mental patient with diagnosed with severe depression, psychotic breakdowns and had been institutionalized for 5 years. OH and just to make things interesting, lets give me mild schizophrenia. If my state does not submit my mental records to the NICS, I can go out and buy a firearm from Walmart. Because my mental records are not on file, I pass my background check since technically I have no criminal record. My buying of the firearm is actually illegal, because I have a record of mental illness, but very few know this simply because my state does not do what it is supposed to do to assist the system.
User avatar #945 to #881 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
That's just an argument that we need to change the record keeping with NICS, not ban background checks altogether
User avatar #960 to #945 - deadrifler
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, which is what my argument was to begin with. Background checks are there for a reason, but they are only as effective as the support they get.
User avatar #1034 to #960 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Okay.... well Obama wants them, and since he's the anti-christ to republicans, and seeing as how they love their guns, they won't give it to him----- of course not literally
User avatar #1061 to #1034 - deadrifler
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Problem is, you are viewing this entire thing as Republican vs. Democrat. It is not, I for example do not vote for one party. Those who limit themselves to following a party simply out of loyalty are blind fools. I vote for which ever way I view as bringing the most benefit.

I remember a saying someone once told me, "The best followers are not those that follow blindly, but those who question it with every single step they take."
User avatar #1090 to #1061 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I would gladly vote for a Republican, if it weren't for the fact that they always side together on everything, and oftentimes at the expense of the country purely for partisan gain.
That and the ignorance of the majority of their representatives has turned me off from them for now and any time in the near future.
User avatar #1127 to #1090 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Once again a blanket term. I'm pretty sure we could find someone on the Republican side who would say the same modus operandi is utilized by Democrats.

Good example, most Republicans I know would accuse Democrats of maintaining a dependent underclass that needs big government assistance. One that I am friends with in particular has discussed with me before the Democratic Party dragging its feet in regards to stronger border control while pushing for amnesty of illegals not for the benefit of the illegals but because that is 11 million potential voters from the Democratic party.

Here is what he asked me, so I'll forward it out, "If the Democrats thought these votes would be against them, which do you think they would do first, tighter border control or amnesty?"

Let's face it, in our two-party system, the gain of the party supersedes the gain of the people.
User avatar #1298 to #1127 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
You won't find a Republican that sides against his party for anything important. They have a strict coalition and you won't survive in washington if you go against it.
The Democrats don't do it nearly to that extent, so the Republicans aren't getting my vote. Even the" best" candidate in the world wouldn't be able to do what he wanted to do under the republican visor.
And as for "the gain of the party", the Democrats have a MUCH more balanced operating system between good of the people and good of the party than Republicans.
Their whole mantra has been to vote against every single bill Obama presents, even if it is to their or the country's benefit, JUST to make Obama look bad (deny him a second term they called it initially, and now it's just to spite him) They can't be trusted at this point in time.

User avatar #883 to #881 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Ignore the first with, sorry it is late here.
#800 to #758 - anon id: cb18c2b2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because if plan on buying a weapon to kill someone with, chances are you're not buying one that can easily be traced back to you. I.e. the black market. People always willing to make a buck selling illegal substances.
User avatar #796 to #758 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
i agree there should be checks for mental instability and children are not aloud to buy kinders in the us they are banned and the reason they wont be unbanned is because no one cares enough about them. that being said we shouldn't take away weapons from people who pass the checks. why should i be punished for what others do with their guns when i buy it i accept the fact that if i use it wrong i will be dead or in jail.
User avatar #850 to #796 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
There are checks in place KG. I replied to Gorgin's comment #758 in regard to it.
User avatar #871 to #850 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
i didn't say there isn't i said i agree that there should be
User avatar #885 to #871 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Oh gotcha. Yeah my only problem with the restrictions in place is, they are outdated and not well maintained.
User avatar #803 to #796 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
you're already punished for what other people did every day

a very easy to point to example is all that extra airport security since 2001

On that same topic, these gun toters weren't crying a river when Bush trampled the constitution with his patriot act
You may not like what Obama is doing, but it's actually all within the bounds of the second amendment, something the Patriot Act is a far, far, cry away from
User avatar #814 to #803 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
as long as i have the right to buy weapons i don't mind extra security on purchasing them im not arguing for one side or the other i was just saying that this comparison was idiotic
User avatar #823 to #814 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
On the surface, yes.
But on a deeper level (though I can't attest that the author saw this fact) it shows that the system is hypocritical and ineffective as a result of people's irrational emotions about their guns (people saying " Don't try to take my guns Obama"---which he wasn't even trying to do with the exception of assault weapons, I mean you don't see legalized ************* bazookas). as well as those that profit from them
#862 to #823 - anon id: eacb87e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Except "Assault Weapons" have already been banned. Now they changed what their definition of assault weapons is and are trying it again. Any weapon can be an assault weapon if you assault someone with it. In another 5 years they will change the definition of assault weapon definition to include handguns, in another 10 years they will add everything but black powder muskets. I don't see what "gun toters " opinions on other subjects has to to with these laws. IT is possible to be wrong about one thing and right about another. If you are against the government taking away your rights and freedoms as i infer from your bush comments, you should realize that it doesn't happen overnight. It happens one step a a time. This is one of those steps (Just as the patriot act was).
User avatar #932 to #862 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
If you want to talk about freedoms, lets talk about some relevant freedoms, i.e.
Patriot Act
#976 to #932 - comradvlad
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
How wonderfully hypocritical of you. "relevant freedoms" Relevant to who? You? AWSOME DUDE, lets run with your logic for a second. I'm not gay, so i wont support the freedom of gays to get married. Its irrelevant to me. Im not black so honestly i could care less if they cant vote, its irrelevant to my freedoms as a white male. Speaking of which i really dont mind if all the jews get put in interment camps as long as I HAVE THE FREEDOM THAT'S RELEVANT TO ME. Are these examples extreme? yes they are. But thats the point because as long as you take freedoms one small step at a time by the time you realize that what has happened is extreme its already too late.
User avatar #836 to #823 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
you can buy explosives such as bazookas legally as long as you pay for the proper permits(they are very expensive) and pass the checks to own them. guns as well as other things are a choice that the government shouldn't prevent the majority of the population from owning. certain drugs should be banned because of what they do to our state of mind but a gun does not make you kill someone it just makes it easier. you still have to live with all the consequences. its similar to when the church said the crossbow was a weapon of pure evil and tried to ban it sometime near the 1300s it just made killing easier but its not the weapon that is to blame and thats why the weapon isn't incarcerated or executed
User avatar #845 to #836 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
buy explosives? they start watching your ass if you buy too much FERTILIZER
and what could you possibly need with explosives as an individual? as a business that needs it, I could understand that, but what the hell possible use could an ordinary citizen have for a bomb?
you have a source for that claim that people can just buy bombs with a permit?
Anyhow, the argument is that assault weapons, just as mother ****** bombs, have no use whatsoever, other than mass shootings
You can protect yourself perfectly well with regular-powered rifalry

And if you want to see how this country really operates, foreign policy is a great cue

Iran isn't even allowed to have a nuclear program for power because they could potentially make a bomb with it----Meanwhile North Korea already has their prototypes ready and the U.S. hasn't done **** to prevent it (which maybe is a tangent)
But the point is that we can recognize potential for evil as a reason to ban something, and in this case, assault weapons have no potential for good

And that statement is coming from a person that wouldn't blink an eye if half the world's population killed over for no reason (as long as no one I know dies)
#878 to #845 - anon id: eacb87e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Your example kinda makes sense... Until you realize that you are comparing the average american citizen to a dictator. The wont iran have nukes because they realize there is a very possible threat. A responsible law abiding American with an "assault weapon" is not a threat. You know who is a threat withc an assault weapon? A known felon. Luckily felons cant buy assault weapons... or ANY guns for that matter. Funny how they still manage to get them though... Its as though laws prohibiting weapons weren't preventing bad people who wish to use them for evil from obtaining them anyways. WHAT A SHOCK!
User avatar #934 to #878 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Ok buddy, a "known felon" is the same person as he was 10 seconds before he committed those felonies
And your argument is suggesting that we should have no laws whatsoever since people will break them
#964 to #934 - comradvlad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Ok lets apply your logic to justify the patriot act which you seem to oppose. A known terrorist is the same person he was before he commited terrorist acts. Thats why we need the ability to spy on any american citizen with or without reason. The thing about logic is it has to applies across the board. Anyway, the boston bombing just proved you don''t need an assault weapon to cause damage. Two guys used ******* pressure cookers to kill three people, injure 170 (some very severely) and shut down an ENTIRE CITY for a day. What are you going to do now? Ban pressure cookers? Ban nails that were used as shrapnel? You seem like you would welcome the 1984 dystopia. After all if the governments sees and knows what everyone is doing all of the time youll be so safe and wont have to worry about crazies and terrorists. Sure youll be a slave but who cares as long as you get to serve your overlords until a ripe old age right?
User avatar #1045 to #964 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
You're warping the logic. The government already spies on you, the Patriot Act is just a way to do it in a incredibly unconstitutional way. To compare background checks to the Patriot Act is just pure ignorance.

Anyhow, you think he built that bomb with just nails and a ******* pressure cooker? Obviously he got a hold of bomb material he wasn't supposed to.
And how are you simultaneously defending the Patriot Act and saying that gun regulation is evil? Seriously, how is your head not spinning right now?
#1222 to #1045 - comradvlad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Thats my point dude... You can use the samle logic YOU are using to justify gun bans to justify the patriot act. JEsus thats the whole point. I DONT SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT. Im against ALL of the ****** laws that the government is trying to pass now a days. And what illegal things they werent supposed to get? Fertilizer? Pressure cooker? Nails? BBs? Maybe a cellphone for remote detonation? Most Of these bombs are made with everyday items, thats why these people can make them in the first place.
User avatar #1299 to #1222 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
What? I never justified the patriot act. I was saying that Republicans supported that, and are against this, which is incredibly hypocritical.
And if you can make a bomb with JUST a cell phone, nails and bbs, and a pressure cooker, I will give you every cent I have.
User avatar #863 to #845 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
i disagree on your understanding of an assault weapon. according to the laws assault weapons are classified that way based on looks. in my opinion an assault weapon must be fully automatic which is also legal under a class 3 weapons permit(explosives are either class 3 or 4 i don't remember). most of the laws about "assault weapons" are based on the attachments but you can buy equivalent semi automatic weapons that have the appearance of a hunting rifle but they don't count as assault weapons. and you're right buying chemicals used in bomb making such as saltpeter is watched because you can make explosives but with permits you can buy things such as 40mm grenades and c4 as well as own full automatic weapons and suppressors. the problem isn't the kind of weapons its the fact they are being taken away. this is a "slippery slope" argument if you take away one kind then the next kind is considered to dangerous and eventually we have no right to own weapons and stuck to be victim of crime the government can't protect against. they did a ban/take of weapons austrailia and guess what happened crime went up. not all the rises were gun based(some was) but the majority of increase was home invasion because criminals thought well they have no gun and were less scared of invading people homes. something i hope never happens to myself or others but if it does i will be defended
User avatar #942 to #863 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I seriously doubt that all guns will be banned on this slippery slope, especially since you're drawing an arbitrary line in gun regulation, saying that it's good exactly where it is ( we already have forms of regulation in place)

But, sure. I'll entertain your worst-case scenario idea for the sake of discussion.
The world would end if no one had any guns?
#1001 to #942 - comradvlad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Except the governmet has a proven track record of taking all laws that impede freedom further and further. LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT, All the "copyright" laws, etc. Just out of curiosity, when the government passes more and more laws that restrict freedoms "relevant" to you. hen it finally makes life in America seem like life in North Korea, what are you going to do? Smack them in the face with your mighty book of anti gun laws? The second amendment allows American citizens to protect themselves from enemies forignt AND domestic. Do you really think the governments is restricting guns further and further for YOUR saftey? They could give a **** less about you. They allow carcinogens in our food, send our sons and daughters to their deaths to line their own pockets and allow banks to **** the average citizen... **** they actually PAY them to do it. Do you really for one second think that gun control is about anything other than another step allowing them more and more control over the masses (just like your hated patriot act).
User avatar #952 to #942 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
no the world doesn't end but quality of life decreases i want to be able to be and feel safe in my home. honestly they change the definition of what is an assault weapon to continue to take away our rights and as you said life isn't over with a loss of guns but that being said you lead to the bigger slippery slope when does the government stop taking rights away from the citizens if you make a huge change to the bill of rights what comes after guns? they make small changes over long periods of time to eventually strip all rights away. its not only about the guns which most anti gun people fail to realize and that's not to say the democrats are the only ones who would be willing to take rights away because republicans are anti abortion which is another right that individuals should be able to make but it can all be taken away if we aren't careful
User avatar #868 to #823 - deadrifler
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Except an assault weapon is a political term. The gun itself is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with ergonomic and cosmetic differences making it look the same as the "scary" assault rifle. The basis for banning "assault weapons" stems from the the fact they realized they could not go after semi-auto weapons in their entirety and they knew handguns would be impossible to pull off shelves in their entirety. So you attack parts of the system that you know you can stop.

High capacity magazines and "assault weapons". High cap mag bans would also affect handguns, since most pistols these days are not manufactured with less than at least a 10 round mag(Except revolvers, conceal carry .45s etc) they most typically are sold with what would be an illegal magazine, thus making the sale of said firearm illegal across the nation if such a ban is implemented. Hell, even quite a few .22 longrifles would be illegal under such a ban.(Referring to the 10 round mag ban they wanted to implement.)
User avatar #930 to #868 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Why would you think they want to ban all hand guns?

Honestly the purpose of the second amendment is quite irrelevant today as our military has become ungodly powerful.
If you want to enforce the second amendment, we should be slashing the defense budget like crazy. Hell, we should be doing that regardless. We spend more on defense than the next top 5 countries put together.
It's ridiculous. Republicans are the ones that want small government and yet they want a huge military which is the most physically powerful part of a government and the biggest waste of funds on the books. We can get by spending the same amount as the other top countries easily.
User avatar #954 to #930 - deadrifler
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Except the military doesn't respond to domestic problems and the average response time in regards to 911 emergency calls is 10 minutes.

Military is not a waste of funds, granted we spend too much on it, I will not argue that. Yet we are also one of the biggest threats in the world, we have invested so much in other countries we can not back out of being the military we are now. We have defensive pacts with enough countries know, where the scaling back of our military could be disastrous.

A good example is the current situation in Korea. We are sworn to defend South Korea, China is sworn to defend North Korea, both China and ours involvement in Korea was the only thing that stalemated the war. As it stands, there is chance of this war stepping up again, if South Korea was to be invaded, we would be forced to respond on a national front, thankfully signs are pointing to allegiance between China and North Korea being strained.(They actually supported North Korea sanctions and censure, the first time this has ever happened.)

Look at human history, sadly, might makes right. Throughout the history of humankind, the warrior has profited and the meek have been led. But enough on the subject of military.

Back to second amendment. Yes, the amendment was put in place in regards to militia, but this is another slippery slope. Say we stop acknowledging it because it is "archaic", how long till it is decided the 5th or 6th amendment is no longer needed?

Hell how long till they decide your 1st amendment is something that no longer need be ratified. When you do not question the loss of your rights, regardless of the right, you will question less in the future.
User avatar #1027 to #954 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, those amendments might be obsolete in another 200 years, most likely because humanity will have given up the last traits that make them human, but for the sake of argument that would mean we don't need those amendments.


Giving up something you don't need is no crying shame.
We've gained countless rights since the constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights was originally just a compromise to get those who wanted small government (the mantra of today's Republicans) on board, so that's a hot cup of irony right there

We can give up the rights we don't need for the ones we do.
User avatar #1057 to #1027 - deadrifler
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The rights to due process, fair trial, and a speedy trial given up? I highly doubt it. Humanity despite what people like to think, rarely changes. How much have we changed in the written history of mankind? Sure, disease doesn't kill us like it used to, but behaviorally we are much still the same beast.

Sure, our persecution carries a different label now, it has evolved from its basic premises to a more complex machine, but it is still there. Societies are still xenophobic, land is still the dispute of the day, resources are still a strong basis of argument and confrontation. But the reasons we fight for these resources are different, it is less now about food and water and more about oil and other more luxurious items.

We still persecute those who are different, though steps are slowly being taken to improve this. The steps are small, but just because legally we are becoming more equal does not stop the populace from retaining such viewpoints. A good example is, the area I hail from. The KKK headquarters is considered to be somewhere about an hour to two hours north of my hometown if I remember correctly.

Pull history books from the medieval times or even further back to the days of the Greeks and how they portrayed themselves against others is not much different to this day and age. The more militaristic are respected, and viewed in a better light(The victor writes the history.) Aside from that, their societies are not that much different from ours. Sure our technological expertise and quality of life can be considered to be better, but how we interact with each other is not much different.

Socially you are judged whether or not you want to be. There are implications to how that judgement is made regardless of whether there should or should not be. Granted our social restrictions are not quite as extreme in this age as they were in previous ages but they still exist and limit.

User avatar #1085 to #1057 - gorginhanson
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Your doubt doesn't change reality.
We'll all likely be mechanized in another 200 years, meaning that we'll essentially become robots. It's already gaining more and more traction in the medical field. The next step is leisure enhancements, until it's so incredibly common-place that it will be done from birth.
And anyhow if you understood world history, you'd know that we've changed immensely. Hell in the last 50 years society has become completely and radically different. You would have to be blind not to notice that.
They're already unlocking the technology to change a baby into any desirable traits before birth, which to me sounds incredibly ****** up. Humanity is changing, so despite your doubts, we could easily move beyond the need for many more of the original amendments.
But that's besides the point. Your slippery slope argument is flawed because it wouldn't allow for beefing up any rules at all. I'd use airline security as an example (though I don't agree with it). It has been getting more and more strict over the years, but they still do it because supposedly it keeps us safe.
Anyhow, I would argue that your slippery slope argument is in and of itself a slippery slope of itself. Once you say that more gun regulation is a slippery slope, then you can argue increased regulation of any variety is a slippery slope to total control.
You know I'm right, and even if you don't, I still am.
I hope you've been given something to think about, but then again, it's no skin off my back.
User avatar #1223 to #1085 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
and you realize the change in security only applies if you fly commercially. if you spend a bit of money(about 5 grand where i live) you can get a license to fly a plane and rent one for somewhere between 200~1000$ depending on how far you fly. its like this with guns as well if you have the money you can get real assault weapons fully automatic high capacity weapons. the government isn't going to band all planes though but if they get the chance they will ban all weapons. they continue to change the definition of assault weapon to take away more and more of our ability to purchase the weapon. have you ever fired or lived with a weapon? they don't make you a killer. I grew up around weapons i've shot many targets but you don't see me killing anyone. and even better is you complain about aircraft security and you say we will be robots in the future. thats incorrect(i assume its just a lack of some obscure vocabulary) we will be cyborgs and it will help us advance everyone will be smarter because of it but like with all things in our society the wealthy will benefit the most and the working poor will not benefit for many years after the initial benefit. next we could look at travel planes will still exist in 200 year(this is close to 50~100 yeas though) we will stop traveling by plane they are inefficient for this job. sometime this century we will start using maglev rails they operate in almost frictionless environments and can travel around 6000 kmh without hurting the contents. so we wont be worried about airport security any more maybe they will have a new form of security for that but that isn't really the point. they may have made it take a little longer to use the planes but they didn't take them away(nor will they unless we get a faster and more efficient form of travel) at that point people will only use planes for war and leisure and the government isn't really taking them away they are just falling to the wayside like boats(leisure vehicle now).
User avatar #1300 to #1223 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Ok buddy, the very vast majority flies commercially. I said robots, because we will keep evolving as cyborgs until we are so incredibly mechanical that there will be nothing human left, and it's that exact rationale you gave for becoming cyborgs that will get us there. And airport security was just an example, don't get too caught up in it.
User avatar #1316 to #1300 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
it isn't possible for us to evolve into robots by definition. robots can become like us but we will always be fundamentally different
User avatar #1317 to #1316 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
it's unnatural evolution

besides, we already are robots, we just aren't metalic
User avatar #1323 to #1317 - kgblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
if you want to make a distinction between natural and unnatural evolution thats fine but in my opinion they are the same because the cybernetics are an extension of our evolution. its just a faster method than how nature usually is. it is a bi product of us evolving to be smarter and smarter
User avatar #1113 to #1085 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Once again you fail to understand the aspect of a slippery slope. Taking away rights is not beefing up rules, it is the supplanting of a rule with a new rule, not beefing it up. You beef up a rule by adding more restrictions etc. You are really obsessed with airport security, but I'll leave that be, I work at one so go through such extensive security measures day to day. Yes, they beefed up the rules, but mainly because the rules that were in place were actually a joke. Did you ever fly in the United States before airport security was turned up? Granted, they took it to the extreme, but it was pretty pathetic before.

As for the rest of that red herring, I'll snip your jab at my knowledge of world history. Yes, humanity has developed, but behaviorally we have not. We have advanced, but culturally, xenophobia is still prevalent. Society has become radically different from GOVERNMENT standpoint. I'm going to assume you are a white male. Drive to Chicago or Detroit sometime and see how "radically different" people have become in the projects. They would love to hear that one.

People in poverty are still in poverty, are still in horrible living conditions. I am not being a cynic, I am being a realist. The advancements we see today, are only available to those with the money to benefit it. Which is how it has been throughout history. Once that advancement becomes obsolete or cheap/easy enough to mass produce, is when everyone else enjoys the luxury of it.

Most of these "upcoming" changes are simple conjecture. Life isn't Utopian, its business as usual. The poor have always suffered throughout history. Minorities are still the targets of heavy-handed tactics(Much like throughout history.)

Sure, we don't have slaves anymore, instead what would of been considered serfs and slaves these days are low income workers. Work a low-income job sometime, see how great they've got it. They are expendable in the work force to most companies.
User avatar #1120 to #1113 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I understood it perfectly. Did you not read a single word I wrote? If we're talking about the same thing about gun legislation, they were beefing up rules to be sure. Why don't you actually read the proposed changes instead of siding with the people that vehemently insist that "Obama wants to steal all of the guns".
And who gives a **** about xenophobia in the big picture, so you can go ahead and drop that and come up with some real examples. And as for the uneducated bumpkins in Detroit or Chicago, I seriously doubt reality is directly tied into what they find feasible.
If you're going to talk about "the projects", that clearly isn't a zoomed out view of the world changing. It's just some punk asses who haven't seen a fraction of what the world is like.
Life doesn't have to be "Utopian" as you keep insisting to become radically different. It wasn't Utopian back when the 2nd amendment was written, and it isn't utopian now that it has almost no meaning anymore.
And most of your examples have been about societal structures, and not the people that compose them.
User avatar #1143 to #1120 - deadrifler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm going to stop arguing the points on social trends, it is a different subject and we are both ingrained into our own viewpoints.

I'm starting to wonder if you even grasp the concepts of what the assault weapon ban was actually trying to do. The ban itself, was simple a forefront. What they had attached to it was the real meat of the ban, since you told me to read it, I strongly suggest you go out and actually read the damned thing. The limitations imposed, therein were not just against assault weapons.

In the bill itself, they planned to ban ANY semi-automatic rifle or handgun with a detachable magazine(so pretty much any handgun out there that isn't a revolver.) with a capacity of 10 bullets or more. .22 Longrifles, a firearm commonly used to hunt squirrels would be subject to this ban. My Remington .22 has a 10 round and a 15 round magazine, both of which after the ban is enacted would be illegal to sell.

I strongly encourage you to go to Factcheck and take a look at the statistics for firearms. Gun violence is at the lowest is has been since 1981(A time before the assault weapons ban of 1994.) I would also like to point out that "assault weapons" are not even 10% of gun homicides.

"12,664 murders in the U.S., 6,220, or just under half, were committed using a handgun, while only 323, or around 2.5 percent of murders were committed with rifles, which include military-style assault weapons." From FBI Homicide statisctics.

http://www.fbi . gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expand ed-homicide-data-table-11

Hell, hands, fists and feet are a higher kill rate. So apparently we need to ban hands,feet and fist. I'll get the bone saw.
User avatar #1297 to #1143 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Sorry, bone saws are banned now
User avatar #544 to #13 - undereightyeight
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I logged in so I could thumb this up.
#338 to #13 - anon id: c6c772f4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
who cares, its funny
#458 to #13 - anon id: d2c86e10
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
gun control isn't retarded
#648 to #458 - anon id: ab6e3c2e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Gun control is

mental health control is not.
#545 to #13 - anon id: f72f6709
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Thumbing down 231 thumbs. I feel useless
#710 to #13 - anon id: d5148372
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
But you could also argue that is a hypocritical rationale, that they only ban stupid **** that doesn't matter and they won't do something that matters for once.
#42 - rcomeau
Reply +316 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
mfw I crossed into the US from Canada with a kinder surprise... never felt so bad ass in my life
User avatar #714 to #42 - gorginhanson
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I had a whole carton of those mother ******* smuggled in, and I only choked on the toy pieces twice.
User avatar #536 to #42 - harshy
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
so Canada made you kinder... no surprise there
#332 to #42 - walkerjam
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
#50 to #42 - pocoyothegreat
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I read it as:   
"mfw I crossed into the US from Canada with a kinder surprise... never felt so bad in my ass in my life"
I read it as:
"mfw I crossed into the US from Canada with a kinder surprise... never felt so bad in my ass in my life"
#51 to #50 - rcomeau
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
my asshole has been sore since that day...
#1264 to #51 - trojandetected
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
**trojandetected rolled a random image posted in comment #4025991 at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. **

The americans thought:

My day has never been sore since that asshole
User avatar #506 to #50 - rokkarokkaali
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
where do you think he hid the egg?
#109 - Slushysolid
Reply +276 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Everyone here is missing the real point. We should obviously legalize Kinder eggs.
#546 to #109 - anon id: 46cb4608
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
They are legal now.
#1262 to #109 - hairibar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
wait... why the **** did they ban them?
User avatar #1294 to #1262 - mdmazing
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
In the laws of USA, it is stated that it's forbidden to put non-edible (you can't eat it) things in food. As there is a yellow center with a toy in Kinder eggs, they banned it.
#1314 to #1294 - hairibar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
Mother of god, that's... strange?
User avatar #1315 to #1314 - mdmazing
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
Yea, who would've guessed 'Muricaaaaaaaa banned food. Especially sweet food, I mean, it's a chocolate that tastes like the rainbows and dreams of children.
User avatar #114 to #109 - SuperSixONE
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Please bring the eggs back... the day they got banned I almost cried... banning them it ruined my childhood. I got all exited when I saw this and thought it was about bringing them back..
#22 - teamrocketninja
Reply +165 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Because selling a candy egg and a firearm are comparable actions.
Because selling a candy egg and a firearm are comparable actions.
User avatar #84 to #22 - waffies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
why is shepard wearing a hoodie?
#433 to #84 - anon id: 04c49dd6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Fifth Casual Apparel Option
(Very casual if I do say so myself)
User avatar #437 to #433 - waffies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
i guess i didn't expect that as an option. never played the third and i don't THINK that was in the second
#1003 to #22 - anon id: 323f4f55
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Exactly...? As in, if you can't buy a chocolate egg, how come you could buy a gun?
User avatar #675 to #22 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
They are when the egg is considered more dangerous than an assault rifle to the US government
User avatar #682 to #675 - teamrocketninja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Dangerous for entirely different reasons. The egg is considered to normally be used by children, and is banned for choking hazards and possible lead paint usage. The gun is assumed to be bought and handled by adults, 99.99% of which are going to use it responsibly.
User avatar #698 to #682 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
A gun has one sole purpose, to kill. You can't justify not banning a gun, but instead banning a chocolate egg, which with some minor changes changes can be made entirely safe
User avatar #711 to #698 - teamrocketninja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, guns are designed to kill. But who are what or even if they kill is entirely up to the user. Back to the original point: they are two completely different items made for completely unrelated purposes and cannot logically be compared to one another, as they have vastly different uses and users.
User avatar #721 to #711 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Even though you make sound points, you do realise that you're making yourself out to be someone that believes chocolate eggs are more dangerous than guns right?
User avatar #725 to #721 - teamrocketninja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. I never said I support the eggs being banned. I think thats a stupid and foolish ban and that almost any child would know how to eat candy without dying.
User avatar #726 to #725 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's just what comes across in this debate
User avatar #584 to #22 - cocorosie
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Exactly, a gun is far more dangerous than candy!
#601 to #584 - teamrocketninja
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #575 to #22 - danielph
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
You can actually buy that hoodie irl, it's expensive as hell though because its a "collectible". Still cool as **** though.
User avatar #580 to #575 - teamrocketninja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I know. Ive seen people with it before.
#170 - swiftcoyote
Reply +117 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
How about you ban neither?
#861 to #170 - anon id: bd728502
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I would never vote for ron paul for a million different reasons

For starters he does not believe in the separation of church and state

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
User avatar #925 to #861 - theelderscrolls
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
but hes cool with gay marriage.
#1309 to #925 - anon id: bd728502
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
He doesn't believe in abortion and he wants to repeal the civil rights act. He doesnt believe in gay marriage, he believes that should be up to state. Most states are unfortunately homophobic.
User avatar #1311 to #1309 - theelderscrolls
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
im up for abortion and all but havent there been enough ways to prevent pregnancy already?

The pill
Condoms
the day after pill
the week after pill
pulling out
#1322 to #1311 - anon id: bd728502
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
I believe mr. paul opposes the sex education that would prevent those pregnacies
#768 to #170 - fewjarhead
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I would follow ron paul into oblivion.
User avatar #651 to #170 - theelderscrolls
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
God damn. This ******* man. I would have given him a BJ. Most of you think im kidding. Im not. I would have sucked him off. Seriously. No joke.
User avatar #666 to #651 - undeadwill
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I hear his cum tastes like freedom...
User avatar #669 to #666 - theelderscrolls
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
It tastes like how **** should be..
User avatar #691 to #669 - undeadwill
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
And eagles.
User avatar #793 to #691 - theelderscrolls
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
and lots of 2nd amendment.
User avatar #816 to #793 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
mmmm freedom
User avatar #268 to #170 - CXJokerXD
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I really wonder what it would've been like to have him a president. If only.
User avatar #331 to #268 - undeadwill
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
It would be America. We could say we are America for sure again.
#572 to #331 - anon id: f72f6709
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
We still are America. Don't you just love it when a country founded on democratic elections has a large portion of its people claiming it isn't the same country because the guy they voted for lost?
User avatar #627 to #572 - undeadwill
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Just remember Hitler was also elected by the people.
#212 to #170 - yeorey
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
User avatar #112 - theshadowed
Reply +104 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Guys, what if, we compromise, and put ASSAULT RIFLES IN KINDER EGGS
#632 to #112 - anon id: 0d35bf2f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
or better yet, ASSAULT RIFLES THAT SHOOT KINDER EGGS
#1156 to #112 - nittsurri
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
This man is going places.
This man is going places.
#549 to #112 - tylertuesday
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
you sir deserve a medal!!
you sir deserve a medal!!
#113 to #112 - mkaymkay
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Or make assault rifles that SHOOT KINDER EGGS!
#168 to #113 - garagesale **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #460 to #168 - eggsandwich
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Or Kinder Rifles that shoot assault eggs
#659 to #460 - garagesale **User deleted account**
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#115 to #113 - theshadowed
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#117 to #115 - mkaymkay
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Let's do this
#121 to #117 - theshadowed
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +97 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Have you seen how much sugar those things have?
#24 to #1 - gertoja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Not much in comparison.
User avatar #262 to #1 - Bforbacon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
So? Why the **** would you eat an AR-15?
#434 to #1 - anon id: 76bfa7a0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
clearly that is the thing that is most unhealthy for americans
User avatar #2 to #1 - losglatzos [OP]
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I´m German. I´m addicted to **** since i´ve been 6 years old..........

...........it´s horrible.............
#67 to #2 - skilletpanhead
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
This image has expired
>addicted to ****
#17 to #2 - ganondork
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
"I'm addicted to ****"   
   
I uh... I don't know that feel bro.
"I'm addicted to ****"

I uh... I don't know that feel bro.
User avatar #21 to #17 - nicksik
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
i stared at this gif for a solid 5 minutes not knowing what the **** was going on the entire time
User avatar #191 to #21 - seniorpokeman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
It's clips from a Skrillex concert.
User avatar #224 to #191 - nicksik
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
it looks more like an exorcism
User avatar #244 to #224 - seniorpokeman
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Exactly, just like a Skrillex concert.
User avatar #1183 to #17 - takesomemorewater
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
This is the best GIF I have ever seen...
#1181 to #17 - takesomemorewater
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#938 to #17 - anon id: 53b5aff9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Im pretty sure I know the second girl...
User avatar #8 to #2 - revorce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Oh god. German too. I haven't eaten one in like forever.
Now I want one. But it's sunday D:
#7 to #1 - quiescat
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
how you seen how much sugar we consume......
still funny to me
#27 - Ihazfunkitty
Reply +87 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
because dumb kids eat the whole egg (including toy) and choke, the parents then sue them for having little *****...
#29 to #27 - wakingeyes
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
So why haven't people sued companies that manufacture assault weapons?
User avatar #33 to #29 - sarphog
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Because they're too big to eat
#37 to #33 - dstone
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #32 to #29 - Ihazfunkitty
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
if i recall correctly, somewhere in the constitution its stated that every american is allowed to have a gun. i dont know for sure though.
User avatar #55 to #32 - fireprincess
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
The second amendment to the constitution is the right to keep and bear arms. So you are correct.
#200 to #55 - anon id: 6fad09b9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Except it is only if you are in a well regulated militia. Just sayin'
#468 to #200 - anon id: ed0c2543
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
"well-regulated militia" doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

"well-regulated" means orderly or soldier-like; the discipline of soldiers. It doesn't mean regulated by laws.

"Militia" refers not to the National Guard, but to every male American, 18 or older, willing and able to defend this country in a time of need. This has been upheld by the supreme court.

The 2nd Amendment is not a collective right, it is an individual right. And the prefatory clause, the part that goes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is simply an example of why the 2nd Amendment was instituted. The right protected by the 2nd Amendment is not dependent on the need for a Miltia.

TL;DR - You're an ignorant, uneducated gun-grabber, apparently willing to infringe upon my right that shall not be infringed. Ever heard the phrase "All enemies, foreign and domestic?" You're a domestic enemy to the Constitution.
#568 to #468 - revanthewin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
yfw
yfw
User avatar #993 to #29 - eliteqtip
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because ''assault weapons'' don't exist in the real world.
#1276 to #27 - anon id: 01f920af
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
We have them in Australia, and this has never happened.
#692 to #27 - sweateagle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
HEY! If guns don't kill people, people kill people; toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast.
HEY! If guns don't kill people, people kill people; toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast.
User avatar #1185 to #692 - StupidInTheFace
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
toasters don't toast toast, toasters toast bread.
User avatar #135 to #27 - rifee
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I will never understand why parents don't actually teach the kids about the thing they are giving them, when they know they have never seen it before and obviously have low mental capactity.
User avatar #531 to #135 - ipaintmyfloor
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Parents acting like parents? Not in America.
#35 - snoboardkid
Reply +72 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Bomber sets off a bomb and kills people, we blame the bomber.
Drunk driver crashes his car into someone, we blame the driver.
A person shoots another person with a gun, we blame the gun?

User avatar #318 to #35 - sirofminorclass
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
They blame the salesperson that sold the gun to the shooter.
#38 to #35 - anon id: fc3b79e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
No, you ********. We blame the person with the gun, and we're pissed about the fact that a person like that can get their hands on a gun.
#40 to #38 - snoboardkid
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Most shootings are done with illegally owned guns. Gun laws only prevent people from getting gun legally. That's like saying that if we make weed illegal it will stop people from smoking it.
User avatar #68 to #40 - cullenatorguy
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
WRONG.

Most guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally.

America and its government are trying to stop mass shootings, not all shootings. To end all shootings, gang violence would have to be ended, which our lazy ass government is too stupid to fix.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
User avatar #967 to #68 - cabbagemayhem
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Is that what they're trying to do? Because all available research shows that gun control increases violent crime. What an odd way to go about it.
User avatar #980 to #967 - cullenatorguy
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Large cities where gun control is in place have large amounts of violent crimes. States with high gun control have lower amounts of violent crime. It's kind of a trade off, I guess.
User avatar #1306 to #980 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
That is not true at all. I think you should start citing sources before making anymore assertions.
User avatar #1324 to #1321 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
Thank you.

1 & 2: Irrational arguments and bad or no sources; I can't believe you are still posting these.
3: I don't see relevance.
4: Not a reliable source for making controversial assertions.

5: This is the only source you should have made me read. The study identifies a correlation between gun laws and gun related violence. This is already known. This does not imply a correlation between gun control and violent crime. This is secondary to the well-known studies that do show an inverse correlation between gun laws and violent crime.

I am sorry for Sandy Hook, and for people's fear of guns, but gun control is no solution at all.
User avatar #1328 to #1324 - cullenatorguy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it is. It's ******* stupid.
I provided sources that could possibly have any relevance at all to only back up my claim that states with higher gun laws have less gun violence. It's obvious that cities have more gun violence, that doesn't even need a source.

#1320 to #1306 - cullenatorguy
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #53 to #40 - Endofzeeworld
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Can you get me the source for what you said about gun crimes being performed with illegally owned guns?
#43 to #40 - anon id: fc3b79e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
It won't stop it but it'll help us better keep track of them, as well as reduce the number of them in the populace. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook guy, used legally owned guns that he stole from his mom. If restrictions on gun purchases were made a bit tighter, then there would be less of a problem, although the problem is always going to be there.
#62 to #43 - therealslim
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
He had the assault rifle bushmaster .223 rifle in his cars trunk he never took it inside The only thing that makes the ar-15 and the bushmaster truly similar is the same type of military design and the .223 round
he used I believe it said 2 pistols but there may have been a total of 4 guns in the school or something along those lines
www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/
Next on the order of business the sandy hook shooting you so blatantly referenced Blaming an ar15(should that be what you were referencing) for the shooting when he used pistols is something I am not surprised the media would do But I hope someone would be more informed then from what the mainstream media says
But that argument is for If you were in fact hinting too the bushman being the problem

My next point being that making gun control tighter
I live in the country and They arent taking my guns that as simple as that
but making them harder to buy legally isnt really going to stop major crimes
If someone up and decides to themselves Im going to go on a shooting rampage at that building legality is no longer an issue because I know several people who sell guns for under 500$ no paperwork no serials no trace except word of mouth and the stricter gun laws arent really hurting him Because everyone knows making something illegal keeps it off the streets take a look at meth you cant find that anywhere


TL:DR
Making something illegal wont stop it from being in the hands of those who shouldnt have it
User avatar #802 to #43 - fredthemilkman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
"legally owned guns he stole from his mom"
I guess I legally own a car that i stole.
User avatar #737 to #43 - TastyBurger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
>Legally owned.
>Stole it.

Pick one.
#326 to #43 - anon id: a3c392db
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
It was the mother's fault for not keeping her guns secure from her (obviously ****** up) kid, you ********.
#39 to #38 - anon id: fc3b79e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Guns aren't evil, but your stupid ******* country has proven time and time again it can't handle them responsibly.
#66 to #35 - derpyderpderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
We blame the bomb AND the bomber. We condemn the bomb just as much as the bomber but bombs are that prevalent in our society as guns are.
A car wasn't made to kill. It is the action of the driver who turns it into a deadly weapon.
Gun's are made to kill. They have no other purpose but too kill.
User avatar #138 to #35 - rifee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
noone blames guns... (well some retards somwehere probably does it)

They don't sell pre-made bombs either, but that's not because we blame the bombs:P
User avatar #175 to #35 - jinjo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Newtown, stolen from his mother who was irresbonsible aas **** with her weapons.

Most mass shootings are done with high-capacity/semi-auto/ blah blah blah etc.

Those are the restrictions they're trying to make, they aren't trying to ban guns, they're trying to keep a lid on things that you can clear a room full of people with in under a minute.
#177 to #35 - anon id: 8ee71139
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I am sick and tired of this argument. First of all, no one ever blames specifically the gun, and secondly, you are comparing two things that are illegal in this country with one that isn't. Perhaps we should make drunk driving legal because people are just going to do it anyway.
User avatar #327 to #35 - Johnsfer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
No, people blame Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Starcraft, the fact that they can even get guns and people from the middle east.
User avatar #334 to #35 - dapianoman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
yeah cause it's not like bombs and drunk driving are illegal and it's not like we arrest the shooter, right?
User avatar #678 to #35 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The amount of stupidity in your post hurts my brain
#1116 to #35 - anon id: 0b49b468
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Guns have no other purpose than to kill, stupid ass American's need to learn that... The best defense is not a good offense..
#1133 to #35 - anon id: 00284d1c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Dumb little fat **** swallows an entire kinder egg whole and chokes on it and we blame the toy?
User avatar #194 to #35 - spunkymcblacka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
But cars are actually useful, do you really need to own a gun.
Im from the UK and I have never felt the need to own a gun
User avatar #955 to #194 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes. It's not exactly a need you feel until it's too late.
#408 to #35 - jokerbit
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Who know's it might be a douche of a gun
#235 - emergence **User deleted account**
+41 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#288 to #235 - anon id: 6707138c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
TAKE YOUR FINGER OFF THE GODDAMN TRIGGER!!!!!!!
#236 to #235 - emergence **User deleted account**
+63 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]