yep. . Crap. Well, I guess we' ll just go home then. Darn those liberals and Their weapons bans!!!. Kinda just wanted some registration laws. That's ok though, you guys can keep being deluded.
x
Click to expand

Comments(832):

[ 832 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#476 - ivoryhammer (04/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, flip ******* over the 2nd Amendment but don't give a **** about the 4th and 1st Amendments, which are far more important. ********* .
User avatar #661 to #476 - JoshBauer (04/23/2013) [-]
But the 2nd Amendment allows you to defend your 4th and 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment just allows you to complain about your rights being taken away, the 2nd allows you to take action against violators of the 4th.
User avatar #665 to #661 - ivoryhammer (04/23/2013) [-]
Tell me, how does the 2nd Amendment help that? Civilians with pistols or rifles don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against a military power.
User avatar #669 to #665 - JoshBauer (04/23/2013) [-]
Also, many would've thought the Viet Cong wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. Guerrilla warfare, my friend.
User avatar #667 to #665 - JoshBauer (04/23/2013) [-]
Actually, most soldiers in America aren't going to open fire on their own citizens because many of them are young adults who dislike the government as much as the rest of the country.
User avatar #671 to #667 - ivoryhammer (04/23/2013) [-]
Exactly, so why get all uppity and use that as an example? I'm not saying that the guns should be taken away, I don't really give a **** . It just bugs me when people say they need guns to protect themselves against the government.
User avatar #675 to #671 - JoshBauer (04/23/2013) [-]
Most soldiers. Most police are nice people, but I'm sure you know of many incidences where cops have violated the law. Same with the soldiers who piss on dead enemies' bodies.
User avatar #676 to #675 - ivoryhammer (04/23/2013) [-]
I guess, I just don't get why people are so adamant about guns while not caring at all about other rights being taken away.
User avatar #678 to #676 - JoshBauer (04/23/2013) [-]
Guns are a physical thing that we can prevent from being taken away. 1st and 4th Amendment rights aren't physical and many people just aren't willing to fight to retain those rights.
User avatar #490 to #476 - roliga (04/23/2013) [-]
The second is the only thing keeping the other ones around
User avatar #620 to #490 - badgerclan (04/23/2013) [-]
Because what is by far the most powerful military in the world is only not taking over due to a bunch of mostly untrained and mostly undisciplined citizens with semi-automatic weapons.
User avatar #706 to #620 - roliga (04/23/2013) [-]
It took over 200 military officials to catch two untrained men who were just running around in Boston. There are 87 million gun owners in America. You see what I'm getting at? Also think about the extent the military will go to if there was a 2nd revolution. Most military members would desert to go be with their families.
User avatar #720 to #706 - badgerclan (04/23/2013) [-]
1. What does 200 officials searching an entire city for 2 people say about the government's ability to take over? Does it say that it would be efficient because it only took like 2 days to find 2 specific people in a huge city once they were identified from pictures in a crowd?

2. >Most military members would desert to go be with their families.
Really? Really? The government takes over and most of the soldiers desert? Has any country under martial law or in the process of a military coup ever had a significant number of their soldiers desert when they could be taking over? That doesn't make sense in any way and I gaurantee that those few who did would be hunted down and executed. But let's humor the absurd idea the government somehow tries to enact martial law without the military. If the military is on the citizens' side, why do the citizens need guns? They have the most powerful military in the world on their side. Every single step of your argument doesn't make any sense.
User avatar #732 to #720 - roliga (04/23/2013) [-]
It is completely idiotic to think that citizens could not throw over a corrupt government. Look at Syria, their citizens didn't even have guns in the first place and are now throwing up a whole **** storm for the Syrian government. And why the hell would anyone completely trust the government with total control over guns anyways? The largest school shooting in America was PERFORMED by the government, killing over 200 children and women! And think about what the vast majority of our current military is made up of; that's right, majority of it is just people wanting a free ride to college after being dropped in a desert for oil. Vast majority of the military is between the ages of 25 - 35 anyways and if you think a 25 year old would rather just fire on random civilians because some guy in an office somewhere told them to then go be with their families in a time of crisis you must have one ****** up concept of humans. And remember, the military are still human. They bleed like us, the feel pain like us, and they can die like us. They are not robots just taking in orders.
User avatar #751 to #732 - badgerclan (04/23/2013) [-]
For a response to the second half of your paragraph I present you again with every single use of the military against citizens that has ever happened anywhere on the planet. And let's take a look at the Syria example. The rebels have had a long and bloody war against the 53rd highest spending military (I'll just take a moment here to say that the rebels have the same guns that the military uses and that most of the US gun control ideas that spawned this debate are for civilian weapons that are inferior to those weapons anyway) in the world. What do you think will be the result in a rebellion in the top spending country in the world, one that spends more than the next 14 countries COMBINED, would be? Especially when we're currently on the brink of war with 2 more countries that, should a rebellion actually have any effect other than the slaughter of citizens, would be eager to invade should the opportunity of a country devastated by civil war come up. Yea, sounds like armed American citizens resisting a government takeover will work really well.
#498 to #476 - mogex (04/23/2013) [-]
2nd Amendment is technically the most important.

Without the second there is no way to defend the others.
User avatar #1 - gardenjustice (04/22/2013) [-]
Kinda just wanted some registration laws. That's ok though, you guys can keep being deluded.
#762 to #1 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
>Live in Illinois
>Have some of the strictest gun/ registration laws
> ******* keep killing each other in chicago and rockford anyways
#177 to #1 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
New background check laws would have not prevented Sandy Hook, VT, or Columbine. Just sayin'.
User avatar #499 to #177 - HarvietheDinkle (04/23/2013) [-]
in general, you can't prevent things that happen in the past.
#155 to #1 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
The joke is that if you plan on using a weapon for a serious crime, you're not going to register it legally. I've seen weapons being sold at garage sales, out of trucks, and other places. And my guess is that they didn't own the weapons legally either.
#156 to #1 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
It's like you Americans genuinely don't understand that when guns are banned, gun crime drops dramatically. O_o
User avatar #199 to #156 - gardenjustice (04/22/2013) [-]
That's not an option here.
User avatar #384 to #1 - Whetstone (04/23/2013) [-]
I know right? When I learned what this law was actually about, the first thing I thought was "Why isn't this already active? This seems like a given."
#3 to #1 - iamtheblackgoat (04/22/2013) [-]
As a proud gun owner, I'm with you all the way...if you're really, really against background checks for owning a weapon, then you probably have something to hide and don't deserve a ******* gun
User avatar #66 to #3 - wiseguytwo (04/22/2013) [-]
I am in the same boat mate. I am a proud gun owner and own multiple guns they want to ban. I have no problems with more background checks. The problem is with the recent attempt to get more background checks, they tried to throw the "assault weapons" ban and magazine limits in with it. That was why I wasn't a 100% supporter of the recent failed bill attempt. I want to see more background checks but where do they stop. Will a parking ticket prevent any future gun purchases? Would that be their way to stop gun sales. Consider that my friend and keep shooting!

-Wiseguytwo
User avatar #553 to #66 - captainrattrap (04/23/2013) [-]
What is your argument to not ban assault weapons for civilian use. (IE, people may still keep blot action rifles, shotguns, and hanguns)
#599 to #553 - wiseguytwo (04/23/2013) [-]
For starters, there are already millions out there. A ban would do nothing. As soon as the word gun control is mentions people flock to the gun shops to buy anything and everything they can. I can't buy one right now because my local shop can't keep them in stock so there is argument one, the ban won't do anything. Argument 2, the "assault rifles" and I put it in quotes for a reason as they aren't "assault weapons" are not used in as many crimes as you may think much less fully auto weapons. Last time I checked a reliable source (MSN, CNN, ABC, FOX don't count as they are all extreme left or right) AR-15's are used in gun related crimes a mere 2-4% of the time I think it was. Most of the remaining percentage points belongs to handguns. Example, Virgina Tech. Argument 2, they aren't used in crimes like MSN, CNN or ABC would lead you to believe. Argument 3, Amendment 2 of the Constitution. Anti gunners argument is that the amendment only applies to muskets as that is what they had back in the day. The amendment was created not only as a deterrent to prevent a hostile force from invading mainland America but a measure to prevent the Government from becoming tyrannical. As time has gone on, weapons have been modified and improved upon. Today's military is equipped with M4s and M16's. Should the Government ever consider doing some bad things, they would meet no resistance if all we as civilians were allowed to only have muskets. Naturally, as civilians we don't have access to aircraft, artillery or anything else of that nature but an AR-15 at least gives a somewhat equal footing be it so slight. Now, I know you are going to dismiss everything I just said and that is your right if you are a US citizen. Even if your not a US Citizen, I still respect your opinion completely. I hope this cleared up some confusion mate. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions you have!   
   
-Wiseguytwo   
   
P.S. I just love the gif, 'murica!!!!
For starters, there are already millions out there. A ban would do nothing. As soon as the word gun control is mentions people flock to the gun shops to buy anything and everything they can. I can't buy one right now because my local shop can't keep them in stock so there is argument one, the ban won't do anything. Argument 2, the "assault rifles" and I put it in quotes for a reason as they aren't "assault weapons" are not used in as many crimes as you may think much less fully auto weapons. Last time I checked a reliable source (MSN, CNN, ABC, FOX don't count as they are all extreme left or right) AR-15's are used in gun related crimes a mere 2-4% of the time I think it was. Most of the remaining percentage points belongs to handguns. Example, Virgina Tech. Argument 2, they aren't used in crimes like MSN, CNN or ABC would lead you to believe. Argument 3, Amendment 2 of the Constitution. Anti gunners argument is that the amendment only applies to muskets as that is what they had back in the day. The amendment was created not only as a deterrent to prevent a hostile force from invading mainland America but a measure to prevent the Government from becoming tyrannical. As time has gone on, weapons have been modified and improved upon. Today's military is equipped with M4s and M16's. Should the Government ever consider doing some bad things, they would meet no resistance if all we as civilians were allowed to only have muskets. Naturally, as civilians we don't have access to aircraft, artillery or anything else of that nature but an AR-15 at least gives a somewhat equal footing be it so slight. Now, I know you are going to dismiss everything I just said and that is your right if you are a US citizen. Even if your not a US Citizen, I still respect your opinion completely. I hope this cleared up some confusion mate. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions you have!

-Wiseguytwo

P.S. I just love the gif, 'murica!!!!
User avatar #633 to #599 - captainrattrap (04/23/2013) [-]
I wanted to find reasons and that's what you gave me, so thanks.

1: Rifles, especially american rilfes, break. They won't last long without considerable upkeep and their value would go up greatly. Uncles wouldn't give them to their young nephews and insane people wouldn't be able to get them easily without spending alot of money on the black market and with time even those guns would be gone.

2: The dangerous shootings happen with assault rifles. A handgun conflict would be close up and people exercising their rights would be able to protect themselves in those situations, and an assault rifle wouldn't even be able to be used.

3: If there's a revolution, we're not gonna jump straight to huge gunfights on the street. Guerrillas will break into a concentration camp or army camp and arm the populace. Before then we can use sticks, stones, pistols, shotties, and stolen equipment from soldiers.

I'm not disregarding what you say. It's made me consider your side a little bit more, but I still don't think it's worth the risk.
User avatar #653 to #633 - wiseguytwo (04/23/2013) [-]
Seeing as we, unlike most of FJ, are being civil, here are my counter arguments to your arguments mate.

1) Personally, I consider American made guns to be of the utmost quality and reliability. I have an M1 Garand in my possession that fires just as well as it did back in the 40's. I also have an 1863 Springfield Musket used in the Civil War that fires like a champ. Our guns are so closely monitored during production phase to prevent any catastrophic failures. No gun manufacturer wants a lawsuit on their hands for an improperly made weapon.

2) Incorrect good sir. Most gun related crimes are with handguns. I kid you not with what I said up top. Most gun related crimes happen with handguns. "Assault Weapons" are rarely used in gun crimes. Democrats are literally just pissed off that the 1994 ban expired and they have been looking for a reason to get it reenacted since it expired. Sandy Hook offered that opportunity. However, by this time, the AR-15 has become the "American Gun." The AR-15 is consider this because of how many wars it has one and how reliable they can be.

3) This may be true, but the guerrillas will need to start somewhere. The AR-15 offers them that starting point. They start small. Knock over small targets and gather gear then move up to the big leagues when they have the supplies, knowledge and tactics to hit something like a heavily guarded armory to steal more supplies to arm more of the population. This scenario is EXTREMELY unlikely but it is one, if not the number one reason, why the 2nd amendment was created.

The door is open for more questions and/or comments!

-Wiseguytwo
#714 to #653 - stormtrooperface (04/23/2013) [-]
you two just made me a happy person, I would like very much to buy you both a drink.
User avatar #808 to #714 - wiseguytwo (04/23/2013) [-]
Why is that?
#809 to #808 - stormtrooperface (04/23/2013) [-]
the debate is well thought out and no one is jumping to conclusions.
User avatar #810 to #809 - wiseguytwo (04/23/2013) [-]
Well then, I'll gladly take that drink. What are you offering?
#811 to #810 - stormtrooperface (04/23/2013) [-]
whatever you are having.
#569 to #553 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
Because there isn't a reason to ban them at all.
User avatar #574 to #569 - captainrattrap (04/23/2013) [-]
Well there is, and that's to decrease the number of people that can get shot from a far range in a shooting. I'm asking for a legit reason why people need them.
User avatar #718 to #574 - eliteqtip (04/23/2013) [-]
The infamous AR-15 is only effective up to a few hundred yards. I could buy a 30-06 hunting rifle and kill something from 1000 yards. Range is a completely unrelated factor in the anti-gun argument.

More murders are committed with baseball bats than AR-15s. Banning something that millions of people own because some people use them improperly is moronic.

AR-15 are also extremely effective for coyote and hog hunting/extermination.
User avatar #668 to #574 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2013) [-]
I'd give you the long list but it'd just be rehashing everything we talked about 3 months ago. Learn the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and statistical research about the effects of gun bans (not what partial logic or gut feelings tell you).
#584 to #574 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
How does banning a rifle just because it has a adjustable stock prevent people from being shot? The "Ban" doesn't mean rounding up every semi aautomatic and putting them in a furnace, it just limits the attachments of the rifle.
User avatar #587 to #584 - captainrattrap (04/23/2013) [-]
I'm not going to argue with an anon that doesn't even read my whole comment.
#595 to #587 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
I did and my last comment goes back to my first, there isn't a reason for any of current legislation banning "assault rifles" to pass, maybe read up on this stuff before you blindly support it just because it says "hurr guns bad."
User avatar #664 to #595 - wiseguytwo (04/23/2013) [-]
You are not helping our case Anon. If we want the liberals to listen to our side so we can show them it won't work, we need to be proper and polite. Explain in a friendly manner why you think it won't work or give the reasons why it won't work.
#194 to #3 - Viggiator (04/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, for being both a gun owner, and a reasonable person.
There is so many ****** arguments from both sides, in these debates.
#482 to #194 - lamarisagoodname (04/23/2013) [-]
Seconded. I'm so tired of arbitrary arguments, there's no logical reason the bill had to be thrown out of the senate, lobbyists or otherwise.
User avatar #657 to #482 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2013) [-]
It was thrown out? Thank god. Faith restored in our government and constitution.
User avatar #688 to #657 - deathstare (04/23/2013) [-]
Well, don't just take someone's word for it. Do some backup research and ssstuffff
User avatar #689 to #688 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2013) [-]
I will.
User avatar #694 to #689 - deathstare (04/23/2013) [-]
Ok mom
User avatar #697 to #3 - drewbridge (04/23/2013) [-]
I thought of gun magazine bans kinda like this.


Cars are legal. There are speed limits. Most crashes happen at around 25-40 mph-ish (for Europeans, that's 40-65 kph).
Well, maybe we should ban speeds above 20mph to avoid having more fatal accidents and people being all-around safer.

Going 20mph will get you were you need to go, it's faster than walking, it's comfortable and really safe, there is no downside besides gas and you being impatient and not getting where you want fast enough. (exceptions for professional companies that need the extra speed and have licenses for it)

I honestly think if everyone in the US only went 20mph in vehicles, hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved every year. I also think it's impractical and that it should never be implemented countrywide, because it's pretty dumb.

Thoughts, anyone?
(Car accidents kill far more people than gun violence each year, btw)

#581 to #3 - ThePleasureman (04/23/2013) [-]
Im a proud gun owner too, thats completely for the background checks. The ones we already have. You know? The ones that already keep criminals from buying guns...    
Being for any new gun registration or background check is arbitrarily ignorant. We already have gun registration and background checks. Being "for" background checks only means more of something we already have. What we need is to create things like better security in schools and other public buildings. Also actually hold people accountable for what they do and say.
Im a proud gun owner too, thats completely for the background checks. The ones we already have. You know? The ones that already keep criminals from buying guns...
Being for any new gun registration or background check is arbitrarily ignorant. We already have gun registration and background checks. Being "for" background checks only means more of something we already have. What we need is to create things like better security in schools and other public buildings. Also actually hold people accountable for what they do and say.
#602 to #3 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
why do i always over think this argument..? You, sir, just put me to shame.
User avatar #453 to #3 - kaitheguy (04/23/2013) [-]
as a non gun owner who plans to be one when i'm of age, i agree with you 100%. I know a fair bit of stuff, and I don't see why people are against this.
User avatar #761 to #3 - clockworkmage (04/23/2013) [-]
And thank you for being rational, good sir. I applaud you.
-1
#597 to #3 - dumerveil has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #607 to #597 - iamtheblackgoat (04/23/2013) [-]
'Cept there's a difference between being afraid of Uncle Sam finding your midget porn collection while tossing your hard drive and being afraid that your paranoid schizophrenia will be discovered while trying to purchase a firearm
#723 to #607 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
I don't know... I have generalized anxienty and a panic disorder, which involves passing out around blood/guts, when getting shots, etc. I don't think that makes me any less qualified to be a gun owner, but there is a good chance that many harmless (to anybody other than the person who has it) psychological disorders such as mine could keep people from getting a gun license if screening went too far.
-5
#614 to #607 - dumerveil has deleted their comment [-]
#622 to #614 - iamtheblackgoat (04/23/2013) [-]
How's Philosophy 101 going?
#402 to #3 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
its not about "having something to hide" you *******
#51 to #3 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
well no, they're actually gonna take things up a notch, which i find ridiculous, soon enough anyone that has committed a misdemeanor, won't be allowed to have a gun, those crimes include vandalism possession of marijuana etc. It's ******* ridiculous cause then pretty much a lot of people will be stripped from their rights for having a criminal record, for petty things that happened in the past. I'd agree with the law if it was at least a felony, but misdemeanor is too small of a crime to lose your 2nd amendment
User avatar #10 to #3 - localcatbarber (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm sorry... I totally respect and understand your wish to be allowed to own a gun, as it is a tool for protection... but why exactly are people proud gun owners? I mean, so many people are going to gun shows and buying lots of expensive guns and showing them off and **** . Isn't the deal with owning a gun that you hope you'll never have to use it? Like, apart from training?
User avatar #13 to #10 - iamtheblackgoat (04/22/2013) [-]
I own a hunting rifle, which I'm proud to use for hunting...if I live in a city and have a family and can afford one, I'll probably get a handgun to protect my family, but I won't like having it in the house
User avatar #16 to #13 - localcatbarber (04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, hunting is purdy cool, and I get how people are proud of successfull hunting... but I just don't get how some people are so obsessed with this metal object designed to kill.
User avatar #20 to #16 - iamtheblackgoat (04/22/2013) [-]
And again, in the same way I was with gardenjustice about wanting registration, I'm with you about frowning upon gun worship...are guns, imo, still pretty cool? Yeah, otherwise I wouldn't have one. Are they still really scary? Also yes, and tools with that much power need to owned with a sense of somberness
User avatar #12 to #10 - therealtjthemedic (04/22/2013) [-]
Why is anyone a proud anything?
User avatar #15 to #12 - localcatbarber (04/22/2013) [-]
I get why people are proud of achievments, but why be proud of owning something that anyone can get and that pretty much has one purpose; to kill?
User avatar #17 to #15 - therealtjthemedic (04/22/2013) [-]
Let's imagine we are talking about those guys who ******* LOVE cars.
'but why be proud of owning something that anyone can get and that pretty much has one purpose; to drive?'
Or gamers
'but why be proud of owning something that anyone can get and that pretty much has one purpose; to play?'
User avatar #18 to #17 - localcatbarber (04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, but driving can be a lovely experience that doesn't hurt anyone, and so can gaming. Killing people on the other hand, I believe should be something we wish to not do.
User avatar #19 to #18 - therealtjthemedic (04/22/2013) [-]
what is hunting
what is target shooting
User avatar #22 to #19 - localcatbarber (04/22/2013) [-]
As I replied to iamtheblackgoat I understand people liking to hunt, and yes, I can see how people can find target shooting fun, but I still don't get why so many people are proud of the gun itself. I just think it's unhealthy for a society to worship something that is made to destroy and kill.
User avatar #23 to #22 - therealtjthemedic (04/22/2013) [-]
Well, that's your opinion, not mine, I guess.
#24 to #23 - localcatbarber (04/22/2013) [-]
Let's agree on diagreeing then.
Let's agree on diagreeing then.
#373 to #22 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm proud of my gun because it was passed down to me from my father, and his father before him. I am also proud because I put in the time and effort to become effective and competent with the safety and operation of firearms, and it shows very well whenever I shoot. I am also proud because it is an American tradition and part of my heritage that I am keeping alive. Lastly, I am proud because I know that if somebody tries to harm me or somebody that I care about I have the ability to defend against them.

I'm not trying to prove any point, I was just telling you why I am proud of my gun. I hope that gave a little bit of clarification, and I hope that you have a very nice day. God bless.
#716 to #373 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
I don't really understand why you got thumbs down... Because of the "God bless" maybe???
Hmm.
#713 to #22 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
You could also question why people are proud of the car itself.
#128 to #18 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
yet you can get into a crash or run over a kid chasing a ball. cars can be lovely like guns and kill as well. they are massive unguided missiles and a bullet is small and has one path
User avatar #449 to #128 - ilovehitler (04/23/2013) [-]
A car has the purpose of transportation, and something getting hurt is usually an accident.
A gun has the purpose of causing harm, and something getting hurt is usually not an accident.
#4 to #3 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
inb4 you anon pussy
I dont have anything to hide and who died and made you king to say i dont deserve a gun because i dont want everyone and their brother to have knowledge that i one one
User avatar #14 to #4 - therealtjthemedic (04/22/2013) [-]
Anon, come here bro.
We go to /k/, down some shots. You're cool.
#334 to #3 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
go to hell, fudd.
User avatar #753 to #3 - burdenedsoul (04/23/2013) [-]
i agree, i do think that having required background checks is a good idea, but what i don't agree with is the fact that some people want to completely ban guns, and saying that it'll be safer for our children, and cause less gun violence, which is ******** , a criminal isn't going to go into a gun shop and buy a gun to go kill someone, they'll buy it in back alleys and from underground markets/sellers, an insane man bent on shooting up a school isn't going to stop and think because of a gun free zone, if anything he's more likely to hit areas with gun bans, because he knows that no one will shoot back, in the aurora shooting, the theater was a no gun zone, in the Clackamas town center, the only reason why he shot himself is because an off duty armed security officer (who didn't notice the "no guns" signs) pointed his weapon at the shooter, who then turned the gun on himself

TL;DR gun bans: no bueno. gun background checks: bueno
User avatar #654 to #3 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2013) [-]
That makes sense if you think of guns as a commodity or just for self-defense, but the purpose of the second amendment implies that most gun owners should have something to hide.
User avatar #660 to #654 - iamtheblackgoat (04/23/2013) [-]
True, true...yours is definitely the most level-headed response to my comment, and I don't implicitly disagree with you
#562 to #3 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
If youre not gonna take away my guns, why do you need to know which ones i have?
There's already background checks that keep criminals from buying firearms.
User avatar #526 to #3 - twofreegerbils (04/23/2013) [-]
confirmed for fewgunz
confirmed for fudd
confirmed for not knowing gun legislation history
confirmed for naive
confirmed for sheeple

Its way too easy to own a machine gun! Everyone who wants to buy a machine gun/suppressor/SBR/SBS/DD/AOW should have to go through a background check!
Said soccer moms of the 30's.

We'll get right on that! Said Uncle Sam. Thus the NFA was created. What Unkie Sam didn't tell us was that...
LOL GOTTA PAY $4000 (30's inflation adjusted) TO GET ONE
LOL IN 34 YEARS WE'RE CLOSING THE REGISTRY FOR MACHINE GUNS
LOL THANKS FOR SUPPORTING OUR DE FACTO BAN

You want background checks on Every firearm transfer? The only way to ensure that happens is to create a registry for all guns. A registry that the ATF would keep open, in good faith... Or maybe they'll just decide to close it one day, and not accept new entries, just like in '68. See: de facto ban.

JIDF pls go.
User avatar #30 - brockyboi (04/22/2013) [-]
...So if the logic is since criminals are going to break any law that we make, then we should just get rid of the law completely?
It's like how we made murder illegal, but people did it anyway, so we just got rid of the law entirely. Your logic deserves a standing ovation.
#744 to #30 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
Think of it this way... a person may choose not to murder someone solely because of the laws against it. This is because that person does not want to go to jail or be executed. If someone uses a gun to hurt other people, they are already committing a crime that will result in a sentence much worse than the sentence that would be given for illegally owning a gun. Why should they care about the consequences of illegally owning a gun if they don't care about the consequences of murder?
TL;DR This comic claims that gun laws are not necessary because we ALREADY have laws against murder and assault in general.
#69 to #30 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
it puts an unnecessary infringement on a constitutional right. if the right to kill were in the constitution, you might have a valid point.

your logic deserves further thought
User avatar #234 to #69 - brockyboi (04/22/2013) [-]
But that in itself may be more of a problem than anything. The constitution before guaranteed slavery to be legal until an amendment was put in. I'm not saying owning a gun is like being a slaver, that would be ridiculous, but the point is that I personally feel that many Americans see the constitution and feel that it is 100% correct and relevant today. In many ways it most certainly is relevant today, but I highly doubt George Washington knew the extent to which gun violence has become in this country.
Let me put it this way: People would rather be dead than give up any of the slightest freedoms, and that is exactly what is happening. I understand it is in the constitution, but we have changed the constitution, and that is why the Elastic Clause is there. In so many other countries security comes before freedom, and I feel that though I certainly don't want the 2nd amendment to be null, we have to realize that promoting the general welfare is what should come first.
tl;dr Just because it is in the constitution, does not make it right because things have changed over the past 200+ years.
#276 to #234 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
there have only been amendments that give rights, they never take rights away. america's choice to value freedom is the reason we have a constitution. the founding fathers drafted the constitution for this reason. freedoms are held in the power of the document rather than in the whims of politicians. 47% of americans own guns legally. less than .003% of americans commit crime. the many should not have rights taken because of the irresponsibility of the few
User avatar #416 to #276 - brockyboi (04/23/2013) [-]
But even when a right is leading to thousands of people being killed every year? That's something that we're proud of? What about promoting the general welfare? What ever happened to that part of the constitution? Not to mention the fact that the 13th amendment does most certainly take away the right to own or have anything to do with slavery. Before the amendment, that was perfectly legal, and that right was taken away. I understand where you are coming from, but America values its freedom like a child at this point. We never have enough. Freedom is one thing that makes this country great, but we need limits. We cannot have freedom for everything and live in a perfectly functional society. We need limitations and times are changing. Americans would rather be dead than not be allowed to have every freedom, and that is exactly what is happening because of it.
In times of crisis, Japan suspends freedoms to protect the civilians, and it works. It's up to you to decide, but being safe sure sounds a helluva lot be than 100% free.
User avatar #719 to #416 - youjustlossthegame (04/23/2013) [-]
”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
#460 to #416 - ogloko (04/23/2013) [-]
right so you see outlawing slavery as taking away rights? i (and i believe most people) see it as granting rights to the enslaved. that was a hell of a stretch on your part lol.

no gun ban has ever worked. and if you are willing to put that much trust in the government to protect you, good luck. also, look to Boston for your crisis situation. the city went on lockdown and they had the guy the very same day.

first its the second amendment, but then maybe they decide that religion causes too many problems so they get rid of the first. then maybe we need to streamline the justice system so **** the fourth amendment. where does it end?

its not childish to value freedom. men value freedom and can rely on themselves, not the government to bail them out of every situation. i dont need the government to judge whats dangerous for me.

if you want to outlaw dangerous things, start with cars (which are responsible for 50,000 deaths each year). but we dont, because of the greater good of being able to travel father and faster. we keep guns for the greater goods of self defense, sport, and protection from tyranny.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal -- well-meaning but without understanding." "Louis D. Brandeis)
#459 to #30 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
OBJECTION!

The reason for NOT having gun-free zones is so that law abiding citizens have an actual chance to defend themselves if a police officer is not within the vicinity.

America's police would have to be larger than the military if they're going to keep the crime rate down whilst having the 2nd Amendment nullified, if that ever happens.
User avatar #242 to #30 - wliia (04/22/2013) [-]
The thing is that murder is immoral in itself. There's nothing inherently immoral about owning or having a gun. It may enable an immoral act, but being in possession of a gun is not evil or wrong or unjust. The comparison doesn't fit.

You could compare it to say, drunk driving, which is not immoral but is likely to result in danger for others, but murder or slavery don't really fit here.
User avatar #505 to #242 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
Using crack isn't inherently immoral or wrong, but it's illegal. People are still gonna use it, yeah, but the law makes less people use it and punishes those who do.
#82 to #30 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
its not illogical, i need a gun because it's my right as an american and if criminals are going get guns anyway with the sole intention of killing people, then i need a way to protect myself and the good guys and evening the odds with a gun is the only way to stop these assholes from being able to hurt people
User avatar #655 to #30 - JoshBauer (04/23/2013) [-]
Making murder illegal doesn't prevent people from defending themselves against murderers. Making tools of defense illegal turns them into tools of attack.
#316 to #274 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
To be honest, I would rather have the older m4 (one on the right) because its semi-auto, lightweight, accurate, and also I like the wood finish.
#325 to #316 - bloodofthedragon (04/22/2013) [-]
You probably don't know much about guns. That's a mini 14 not an M4. Both are semi automatic, lightweight, accurate.
User avatar #379 to #274 - scorcho (04/22/2013) [-]
hmm... bone stock supra or tasteless ricer supra.
#418 to #274 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
Tell me why the military uses the M4 then...

Oh wait, telescopic sight, rail system, and larger magazines. Not that it shouldn't be legal, it should and is if semi auto, but at least make a fair comparison.
#462 to #418 - bloodofthedragon (04/23/2013) [-]
That isn't an m4 sir. An m4 is a select fire weapon which is illegal for any regular civilian to own. Scopes don't make a gun more deadlier. Rail systems are just for attachments. They have the capability to take higher capacity magazines but so does the mini 14.
User avatar #481 to #418 - yourasiangamer (04/23/2013) [-]
That's an AR-15 and a Mini-14, AR-15 don't come with 14.5 barrels (illegal in US), both are semi auto, a lot of today's guns can be fitted with picatinny rail systems and scopes, both shoot .223 Remington rounds, magazines can easily be bought for the Mini-14 to match that "high" capacity of it's neighbor. Comments such as these don't help gun owners understand the arguments made when these statements are used against them.
User avatar #424 to #274 - masterboll (04/23/2013) [-]
dafuq is that picture on about?

the grey one looks like the type that would spray bullets everywhere whereas the brown one looks like it could take down a deer
User avatar #494 to #424 - whaawhaa (04/23/2013) [-]
It is a picture saying they are both the same thing. It is showing how Legislation is trying to ban one but not the other based on the look of it even though they are the same exact thing.
User avatar #452 to #424 - bloodofthedragon (04/23/2013) [-]
They do the same thing and hold the same amount of rounds.
User avatar #618 to #274 - spysappinmysasha (04/23/2013) [-]
Yes, but any Hunter will tell you that rifles like that are unnecessary. If you need 13 mags with 10 rounds each just to take out a days worth of game, than you are a ****** hunter.

Point being, no one needs those guns, and guns like that are practically still made with mass human killing in mind.
#639 to #618 - bloodofthedragon (04/23/2013) [-]
Are you a hunter? Do you know people who hunt? You just generalize and assume people carry that many magazines? And the point of the picture still stands. They are the same rifle and neither is more deadly than the other. And I own an AR-15 and don't hunt with it. I'm a sport shooter as well.
User avatar #652 to #639 - spysappinmysasha (04/23/2013) [-]
I dont hunt, but my dad hunts, my relatives hunt, and my entire county is pretty damn hunting crazy, and NO ONE needs high capacity magazines, tactical rails, silencers, or anything that a military grade firearm is outfitted with.
User avatar #759 to #652 - blackberryjack (04/23/2013) [-]
If the legislature were to pass widespread, generalized regulations limiting the usage of materials and devices beyond their intended functions as you suggest, then cars would likely not exceed 55mph, a person would have an alcohol quota as a function of their BMI, computers would still be running on MS DOS.

I'm not so concerned about this particular type of law passing by itself, but, rather the inadvertent consequences. Laws and regulations like these would open the rights of American citizens to micromanagement. It's a slippery slope; the law in the US is based upon precedence, dating into and perhaps past the formation of the Roman Republic. A particular regulation now may seem innocuous, but given time and a sequence of loose interpretations, further legislation may be written that, when compared to the original, may be excessively restrictive.
#666 to #652 - bloodofthedragon (04/23/2013) [-]
I agree with that no one needs 100 drum magazine but 30 is fine. Whats wrong with tactical rails? they don't make a gun any better at killing people. How is a foregrip or flashlight gonna make me more dangerous? Whats wrong with suppressors? They are used to protect your ears and aren't actually silent. If you were to shoot people will still hear you suppressor or not. Anything that a military grade rifle can be outfitted with? like what? An optic? I don't think you understand how guns work.
User avatar #673 to #666 - spysappinmysasha (04/23/2013) [-]
those things are not necessarily lethal themselves, but they are generally on weapons that are capable of holding high amounts of ammo. And those weapons, as I am sure you can guarantee me, they can be shot as fast as you can pull the trigger.

while the hunting ones can generally do the same thing, they are generally NOT capable of holding high capacity magazines.
#682 to #673 - bloodofthedragon (04/23/2013) [-]
Not true. Many hunting rifles that are used for hunting that are semi automatic can have high capacity magazines. Their are companies dedicated to making high capacity magazines for all kinds of guns. But you basically gave up on your arguments that attachments are deadly right?
Not true. Many hunting rifles that are used for hunting that are semi automatic can have high capacity magazines. Their are companies dedicated to making high capacity magazines for all kinds of guns. But you basically gave up on your arguments that attachments are deadly right?
User avatar #699 to #682 - spysappinmysasha (04/23/2013) [-]
i would have to be completely ******* retarded to think that a flashlight is deadly in itself.

I just thought that attachments of any kind were associated with firearms that are capable of holding high capacity ammo. However, I did not know that hunting rifles of a more traditional design could do the same.

I learned something today about guns.
User avatar #703 to #699 - bloodofthedragon (04/23/2013) [-]
A korean gun company makes drum mags for all types of guns. Like glocks and even the mini 14.
User avatar #758 to #652 - undeadwill (04/23/2013) [-]
Exactly the military and police don't need them to protect us.
User avatar #756 to #618 - undeadwill (04/23/2013) [-]
Ummm... Ever been to the country? We used those big bad "assault rifles" from helicopters to kill hogs that have been causing millions of dollars worth of damage.
#129 - slumberdonkey (04/22/2013) [-]
I am definitely for everyone being able to have a gun. I don't give a **** if a random joe owns a pistol. I just prefer it if people who are insane can't receive guns legally.
#232 to #129 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, we'll see how well that works.
User avatar #645 to #129 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2013) [-]
Define insane.
#680 to #645 - slumberdonkey (04/23/2013) [-]
That's why I 			*******		 hate politics. People can be considered insane by some people but to others they may just be creative. Eh, let's give them a gun.
That's why I ******* hate politics. People can be considered insane by some people but to others they may just be creative. Eh, let's give them a gun.
User avatar #693 to #680 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2013) [-]
Right. In fact, sometimes even the majority can act as if they are insane, such as when Germany was seduced by Nazism and murdered millions of the minority. That's right, I said Nazi.
User avatar #161 to #129 - roninneko (04/22/2013) [-]
They can't. Just because background checks aren't universal doesn't mean that they aren't done. E.g. Adam Lanza tried to buy an AR15, but was turned down specifically because of his mental illness record. That's when he killed his mother and stole her guns.

The problem with the bill that was proposed recently is that it would record the purpose of ever check, creating a de facto registry database of who bought or tried to buy what.
User avatar #237 to #161 - renegadehawk (04/22/2013) [-]
I agree. What they need to do is make the states submit mental records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as most of them do not. Also, whenever a mentally ill person like Lanza tries to buy a firearm, local authorities should be notified to find out what is going on. My biggest problem with the background check legislation that failed was that they were arguing that background checks would be required for online and gun show sales. But online sales can only be shipped to an FFL, where a check is done. And all dealers at gun shows are required to do a check.
0
#519 to #237 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#167 to #161 - slumberdonkey (04/22/2013) [-]
It's taken a while to get this going, and i doubt that it is going to be widely used in the future. I've been to places where they just walk around with automatic weapons on them. I doubt that town is going to deny a gun to anyone.   
Here is a dog riding a dolphin.
It's taken a while to get this going, and i doubt that it is going to be widely used in the future. I've been to places where they just walk around with automatic weapons on them. I doubt that town is going to deny a gun to anyone.
Here is a dog riding a dolphin.
User avatar #175 to #167 - roninneko (04/22/2013) [-]
It's not about when it might happen; it's about whether or not it will. It's not excusable to condemn our children to a police state any more than it is for us to condemn ourselves.
#7 - einhetvin (04/22/2013) [-]
This is retarded
This is retarded
#229 to #7 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Well no **** , that's what the comic is illustrating.
You don't actually believe that they meant this is how it will really work, do you?
It's showing that this will NOT happen if gun laws come about.
User avatar #270 to #229 - einhetvin (04/22/2013) [-]
but this is not what the liberals think the laws are gonna do aswell. its like christians saying "Evolution cant be right because there are still monkeys here today, how come they didnt evolve into humans" its the opposite side not understanding the argument being made.
User avatar #535 to #7 - twofreegerbils (04/23/2013) [-]
Nogunz pls go.

Gun free zone legislature is asinine. Would you like to know what's stopping me from bringing a gun to school tomorrow? Not **** . We have one resource officer with a Glock, and a guarantee that everyone else there will be completely defenseless.

Gun free zones ONLY EVER work when there are metal detectors and cops at every entrance.

Ever wonder why psychos shoot up schools and not courthouses? Because they know kids at schools are sitting ducks thanks to ass backwards legislature.
#8 to #7 - einhetvin (04/22/2013) [-]
to elaborate on my comment: Making guns illegal isn't in any way like this, it is made for the public, which also includes criminals, to not have easy access to guns. This also stops many impulse driven acts, such as school shootings or vengeful people (because they got cheated on, or whatever). Or even accidental killings, such as a youngster who, after a night of drinking, went into his neighbors house instead of his own, and the neighbor, thinking he was a burglar, shot him dead. If you don't have a gun in your drawer, the whole idea of shooting someone is not as easily followed-through. I don't want to be a eurofag, but just look at countries like Germany, Finland, and Sweden. people that have guns there need to have certain licenses, and their gunrights are very limited. I understand that its very deep in the American culture, and that people dont want to give up their hunting adventures, which i have nothing against, but people need to compromise for the safety of the society itself. The fact that americans are so close to their culture makes it difficult for people to change things, but there are some things where the US is behind, socially, such as the gun laws and the death penalty. this is not a US hate comment, I love your porn and sit-coms
to elaborate on my comment: Making guns illegal isn't in any way like this, it is made for the public, which also includes criminals, to not have easy access to guns. This also stops many impulse driven acts, such as school shootings or vengeful people (because they got cheated on, or whatever). Or even accidental killings, such as a youngster who, after a night of drinking, went into his neighbors house instead of his own, and the neighbor, thinking he was a burglar, shot him dead. If you don't have a gun in your drawer, the whole idea of shooting someone is not as easily followed-through. I don't want to be a eurofag, but just look at countries like Germany, Finland, and Sweden. people that have guns there need to have certain licenses, and their gunrights are very limited. I understand that its very deep in the American culture, and that people dont want to give up their hunting adventures, which i have nothing against, but people need to compromise for the safety of the society itself. The fact that americans are so close to their culture makes it difficult for people to change things, but there are some things where the US is behind, socially, such as the gun laws and the death penalty. this is not a US hate comment, I love your porn and sit-coms
User avatar #277 to #8 - studbeefpile (04/22/2013) [-]
Cocain is illegal in the US, and plenty of people still get their hands on that.

Illegalizing guns will do nothing more than leave law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals who are going to get their hands on guns regardless.
User avatar #295 to #277 - einhetvin (04/22/2013) [-]
People dont get the point of gun bans. Banning guns isnt so people are like "oh, we cant have guns, i guess I will not have any guns, even if Im a criminal and already discrespect the law". Its so people dont have the availability of guns, which are literally machines made to kill things. I have nothing against hunters and hunting little faggot squirrels, since you should have to get a background check, get a license, maybe take a course, and still only then have limited availability on firearms. If there are guns sold in every city, guess what, people will buy guns for other reasons than to shoot little faggot squirrels. They will buy them to kill their ex that embarrassed them, or they will use it to shoot up a school because they are bullied and outcasts, I wanna see one of them do something like that with a knife. This isnt the civil war anymore, get some better security systems if you are scared of invaders, get a goddamn dog. Dont go out and buy a ******* gun in the off chance that you might snap one day and be like "hey, i got a gun here anyways, might as well use it". Obviously this is the minority of people that will think this way, but it will nonetheless be people killing other people because they have the ease and comfort of a gun.
#362 to #295 - brisineo ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
It's interesting that you say that, and I respect your opinion, but through experience and studying various statistics, guns are not solely weapons of war, but tools of self defense and hunting.

In fact, most guns in the United States even today are USED for that purpose, and with police crime statistics, there are significantly fewer homicides, rapes, and burglaries than there COULD be due to the fact the victims were armed and were able to fight back. This comic makes a point because ALL "mass shootings" that are recorded since 1950 were in labeled gun-free zones. The attempts on areas that allowed armed citizens... It didn't go well for the shooter. The Aurora shooter could have chosen several theaters that were several miles closer to his location, but he chose that specific one because it was a labeled gun-free theater.

Even then, banning the rifles we have now is quite idiotic. Most homicides aren't done with guns, (Even in Europe, check the statistics. Yes, there's no gun deaths, but there sure is a lot of homicides through other methods) and the ones that are done with guns are mostly with simple handguns. If a man wants to kill a man, he will surely find some way to do it. Guns have prevented this for ages.

Historically, when it came down to it, it was a bunch of armed civilians who toppled one of the largest formal armies at the time to create this country, and the right to bear arms is such to allow a repeat of said war if the citizens find they are under the same oppression that led to the first. We're rebels to the rest of the world, yes, but it's certainly worked so far.
#360 to #295 - Bforbacon (04/22/2013) [-]
Ah, see but you're missing one of the biggest and largely unspoken uses of firearms we have here in America, which is insurance from the government and any invading foreign powers. Although that might sound ridiculous right now, the fact that people in america can own guns at least sort of on par with our government's own is a big factor to consider if anyone should be planning to overtake us. If our own government's military or an invading one tried to seize control, there'd still be that last line of people in America with "assault weapons" and such that they'd have to fight.
User avatar #335 to #295 - studbeefpile (04/22/2013) [-]
What you don't seem to understand is that you can't just get rid of guns, someone somewhere will always be selling guns, if someone has their mind set on shooting up a school, they're gonna do it regardless of whether or not they can buy a gun at their local sporting goods store, or if they have to get one off the black market. I do however, completely agree with you on licensing guns, if you need to take a test before you can drive, there should certainly be prerequisites to owning a gun. If you have such a licensing system, there should be plenty of armed citizens ready to stop any gun related crime, I honestly think teachers should be trained to use firearms (with rigorous testing and background checks and whatnot, of course) because of all the school shooting there have been.
User avatar #634 to #277 - maxcarnage (04/23/2013) [-]
They're not taking away guns from law-abiding citizens, they're trying to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns, and if they do get a gun, the lower capacity mags will stop them from shooting places up quite so easily.

At least that's how I see it
User avatar #530 to #277 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
Oh so there shouldn't be any cocaine regulation then?

Gun regulation is just that: REGULATION. They don't promise to stop all crime ever, just maybe not have a school shooting every month. Yeah, hardened criminals can get guns still, but the mentally unstable dangerous people won't be able to in the heat of the moment.
User avatar #549 to #530 - studbeefpile (04/23/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about regulation, I'm all for gun regulation. I'm talking about full illegalization.
User avatar #798 to #549 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
No one is talking about that.
#38 to #8 - arkfire (04/22/2013) [-]
The second amendment is not about hunting but protecting ourselves from tyranny by our government and the criminal element.
User avatar #40 to #38 - einhetvin (04/22/2013) [-]
ok, i can see how that was needed 200 years ago. But we have the police and other things there for that. It works in every other civilized country in the world, why can't it work in the US?
#77 to #40 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
america is not every other country. we need to stop assimilating to global trends and actually do what works for us
User avatar #536 to #77 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
Stricter gun control works for every other country, and it will work for us. There's being a unique country and culture, and there's being stupid.
#605 to #536 - ogloko (04/23/2013) [-]
show me statistical evidence of it working.

second thought, i'll save you some time. gun bans lead to less gun deaths (obviously). but murder rates stay the same and overall crime increases. put a name to "every other country". theres knowing the facts, then theres being stupid
#268 to #77 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
yeah that's true, but you have to point out what you think makes the US different. i mean for example, all over the world, if women become educated ,the birthrate in that country drops. so if i was saying that in country X we shouldn't educate women because it wouldn't help decrease our birthrate, i would have to give a reason why it wouldn't work for country X when it did for everyone else.
#291 to #268 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
first, youre implying extensive gun control/ bans have worked anywhere. second, american freedoms lie with a well written constitution, not in the hands/ whims of politicians.
#326 to #291 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
first, no, gun control laws work incredibly well in Australia and Europe. and second, the second amendment says that you have the right to keep and bear arms. its far from clear what exactly that means. sure it means a hand gun and a rifle. does it mean you don't have to go through a background check? does it mean that a prisoner has the right to own a gun? does it mean an assault weapon? a grenade? a nuclear missile?

the idea that the plain language of the second amendment answers all of these questions is ridiculous, despite what gun nuts would like to believe.
#388 to #326 - ogloko (04/23/2013) [-]
1) analysis of Australia's crime stats show that there have been no significant reduction in crime due to the ban. there was a 30% drop in murder from 1995-2007 that was also seen in the USA. it has also failed in the UK and every american city that has tried it.
2) "gun nuts"? 47% of americans own firearms. we are, by no means, a radical fringe element
3) you raise valid points on the broad definitions in the constitution. but the political "left" will not stop until there are no privately owned guns. there are standing laws that require background checks and the like. we can enforce those without the need for new, arbitrary, and oppressive laws
#103 to #40 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
A lot of the USA is rural and it can take hours for the police to show up if there is a robbery so that is why we still have gun laws.
#186 to #103 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
I see no reason for you to own a gun in say, New York. If you live out in the middle of nowhere in Montana then by all means, knock yourself out.
#789 to #40 - arkfire (04/23/2013) [-]
Who were the police 200 years ago? The british military and the most advanced military in the world which we beat with the same guns they had and had less of them. The police are not here to protect us but to enforce the law so a lot of the time they are a glorified clean up crew. By the way have you ever heard the saying " when seconds count the police are minutes away".
User avatar #533 to #40 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
There were also ******* duels, and guns had one shot then took a minute to reload. It was a completely different period. They didn't make the second amendment with the guns we have now in mind.
#257 to #38 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
you really think your gun is going to help you fight the US military? this is such paranoid ******** . even if you really believed the united states government wanted to and had the ability to violently oppress its own citizens (btw, you are a crazy person if you believe this) what do you think your assault rifle will do against tanks, drones, lasers, massive organization and intelligence etc.? the argument that a gun is going to protect you from the us government is laughable.
#333 to #257 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Crazy person? Try historian. There have been many cases throughout history of governments turning militaries against their own people, and to believe that just because it isn't happening now it could never happen and we shouldn't have a factor to dissuade against that course of action (i.e effectively armed citizens) then that is the logical equivalent of removing all the safety features of your car because you believe you will never be in a collision.

This doesn't just apply to your own government either. An armed civilian population is generally a warning flag for foreign entities not to invade, as instead of just fighting an army, they are fighting every armed citizen of a country for every foot of land.

In countries like America and Mexico where they have a constitutional right to bear arms, they were put into the constitution because the writers knew that armed citizens are the single greatest passive counter to tyranny.
#374 to #333 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
under that logic citizens should be able to own missiles and tanks and F-22's. you are equating the present with a past in which weapons owned by the government wasn't that different from weapons owned privately. the pre nuclear, pre chemical, pre internet, pre drone world that you're talking about doesn't exist anymore. guns aren't going to keep us safe from any government, our own or anyone elses.

now we face more of a threat from domestic ownership of guns than we do from terrorism. if you don't believe me look up the statistics.
User avatar #521 - thelonebrony (04/23/2013) [-]
The two most ignorant statements of today are:
"The government is on my side."
"The government would never do that to us."
The 2nd amendment was made for the people's protection from tyranny. We each have a right to defend ourselves and the people we love. When the government makes a move (be is big or small) to disarm it's people, that is usually a bad sign. Everything starts with a nudge. It's a slow and steady process. little by little, the government will slowly chisel at the 2nd amendment until it is no more.
User avatar #637 to #521 - badgerclan (04/23/2013) [-]
>The two most ignorant statements of today
I've watched or participated in dozens of gun control debates both online and offline and have literally never seen anybody say either of those statements or anything similar, except for people saying it like you to point out how stupid it is. It's the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
User avatar #687 to #521 - ivoryhammer (04/23/2013) [-]
Civilians owning guns won't deter a tyranny, have you seen the US military? All their equipment could literally blow anyone(even someone with a gun) away in a matter of seconds. Keep in mind this amendment was written back in the 1700's, the average civilian owned a gun because of local militia, the military back then didn't have fully automatic rifles that could kill someone from 100+ yards away. Most civilians were as well armed as the military back then.
User avatar #763 to #687 - thelonebrony (04/23/2013) [-]
You are right. Owning guns wont deter a tyranny and yes times have indeed changed since the 1700s. And compared to our own military, we are more than out-gunned. But military superiority alone isn't what makes us as a nation strong. The fact that we may own a gun is enough to keep our enemies from invading. Isoroku Yamamoto; an admiral of the Japanese navy during WWII once said: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I know that times have changed but the ways of evil people don't. And when evil strikes, I want to be able to protect myself. It is my right and no one should take that away from me.

There is my 2 cents. Sorry for the long reply.
User avatar #613 to #132 - badgerclan (04/23/2013) [-]
>Zero percent more deadly
I'm gonna ignore the bipod and optics for a moment, but I have to point out that bayonets were a major part of combat from when they were first invented until WWI. In fact, due to the very slow fire rate of muskets and the need to take ground, much of the fighting with them in many wars was in close quarters and the majority of fighting with them was done using the bayonet. The bayonet alone probably tripled the killing power in that picture.
User avatar #649 to #613 - tallestmidget (04/23/2013) [-]
top one has a bayonet also
User avatar #736 to #649 - coolcalx (04/23/2013) [-]
the bottom "bayonet" (that's a ******* knife, but whatever) would be deadlier than the top bayonet.
User avatar #650 to #649 - badgerclan (04/23/2013) [-]
Odd, I somehow didn't see that. Well, free history lesson for everybody!
User avatar #35 - haseotakaeda (04/22/2013) [-]
Whoever drew this needs to rethink things

The point is that banning guns won't let you buy lethal weapons at a ******* WALMART
#133 to #35 - dangosevenonethree ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
It's funny, I go to college in Kentucky, and you actually can buy rifles in the Walmart nearby. They also have stacks of ammo in the middle of the isle.
#99 to #35 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
You can buy lethal knives in ******* walmart..
User avatar #695 to #99 - deathstare (04/23/2013) [-]
you can buy lethal knifes at a kitchen appliance shop too
User avatar #39 to #35 - leanonwut (04/22/2013) [-]
That would make it gun restrictions, not gun bans.
User avatar #47 to #39 - haseotakaeda (04/22/2013) [-]
Well i'm assuming via either a ban or restriction, you still couldn't buy it at a walmart
User avatar #76 to #47 - Onemanretardpack (04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, that would be great if these people that committed these crimes actually BOUGHT them, let alone at wal mart. 3/4ths of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns, and James Holmes bought his from a licensed FFL
User avatar #250 to #76 - haseotakaeda (04/22/2013) [-]
>Implying it wouldn't be a good thing to reduce these crimes by 1/4th
#354 to #250 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
>implying that if somebody decided to break the law with a gun they would observe the laws that keep them from buying guns.
User avatar #392 to #354 - haseotakaeda (04/23/2013) [-]
>implying that crime rates wouldn't go down if not everyone had a walmart gun in their broom closet
User avatar #801 to #392 - Onemanretardpack (04/23/2013) [-]
Please tell me how law abiding citizens with no criminal backgrounds are doing all the crime. The last three shooters would have passed a background check, but stole their weapons instead. Nothing you or anyone has proposed would do anything but limit the people who would obey the laws, IE: The people not doing the killing
User avatar #804 to #801 - haseotakaeda (04/23/2013) [-]
Again, that is an ignorant and stupid statement
What happens if a "law abiding citizen" who owns a gun he bought from his local walmart decides one day he wants to kill someone? Who the **** will stop him? He already HAS the gun. The point is not to let people have weapons in the first place.
And no, a gun is not a form of defense,
a sword isn't a ******* shield
User avatar #806 to #804 - Onemanretardpack (04/23/2013) [-]
What happens if someone decides to plants a couple bombs in the middle of a crowd? Oh wait, that already happened. Do you want to ban pressure cookers and nails now? No? But they already did more damage than guns have this year. Still no? What if I told you that the best deterrent for these things was someone with a gun? These people want easy targets, so they can achieve their high score. That's why they're not going after embassies or government buildings. As soon as they realize this **** isn't going to be easy for them, the dream dies
User avatar #805 to #804 - Onemanretardpack (04/23/2013) [-]
What's to stop them? Are you kidding me? Are you really this stupid? You can't ban guns and hope nobody uses them. Guns are the best defense against guns. And yes, guns are a form of defense. You use it to do defend yourself, just as you can kill someone with your shield. Your wildly ignorant and all encompassing statements tell me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so this little discussion is done. Come back when you have something better than "Banning gurnz will save lives, even though statistics and prior experience says they won't"
#611 to #392 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
Crime went down after states moved over to shall issue permit states where anyone who passed a background check could get a gun.
User avatar #803 to #250 - Onemanretardpack (04/23/2013) [-]
>Implying you wouldn't raise violent crime by denying people the right to low cost guns
You don't cut off your nose to spite your face, why would you want more violence to happen just so you can have these feel good measures that would do absolutely nothing?

BTW, if you want to know my position, I'm all for restrictions where it actually matters. People with mental disorders that could lead to violence shouldn't have guns. Period. Do you think these shooters are at all like normal gun owners? These people are ******* insane, and shouldn't have had guns in the first place. But you know what? They didn't use their own guns, except for james holmes, who was a ******* nutjob and should've been denied his guns ASAP.

PS: The magazines they're trying to demonize and ban? STANDARD capacity magazines? You know where they got that from? James Holmes used a 100 round beta c magazine THAT JAMMED. Yeah, that magazine saved peoples lives. If he actually had the standard capacity magazines that have a much higher reliability, people might be dead. Politicians know this **** , so instead of going after the ACTUAL high capacity magazines, they're going after regular magazines. They just want to ban SOMETHING, and they'll lie and manipulate polls and public opinion and stand on the graves of dead children to do it
User avatar #50 to #47 - leanonwut (04/22/2013) [-]
I wouldn't mind having to go to a licensed gun seller to buy guns. Leave the paintball and bb guns for stores like that.
User avatar #42 to #39 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
You ban a gun = You cant buy a gun/use a gun

You restrict guns = you can buy a gun / but use it.

Banning guns seems more logical but if someone really wanted to shoot a school up they would but why not make it harder for them to do so?
User avatar #44 to #42 - leanonwut (04/22/2013) [-]
You're logic is ridiculous. I'm not even gonna argue with you.
User avatar #46 to #44 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
I said that wrong i mean

If you ban guns people wont be able to buy them and they cant use them

If you restrict guns people cant buy them....but can still use them :/ what is wrong with this logic
User avatar #49 to #46 - leanonwut (04/22/2013) [-]
Restrictions would just make it harder for criminals and those likely to lose their minds. Banning firearms would only leave law enforcement and military with weapons. Civilians who are perfectly safe with firearms would be stripped of all weapons. But criminals with firearms will still have their firearms. There are enough guns on the black market for crooks to acquire. It won't really make it harder for criminals to find guns. It'll just take longer for them to acquire them.
User avatar #58 to #49 - dinkcool (04/22/2013) [-]
The is no such thing as a person who is safe with a weapon.
User avatar #62 to #58 - leanonwut (04/22/2013) [-]
You must be one of those people who are afraid of everything.
User avatar #116 to #62 - haseotakaeda (04/22/2013) [-]
Are you ******* retarded?
If a mechanism can kill you with a pull of a trigger you're damn right to be scared of it
User avatar #64 to #62 - dinkcool (04/22/2013) [-]
No but i dont trust random people to walk around with firearms on the streets. For me that is pretty much the same thing as walking around on the streets in a warzone.
User avatar #57 to #49 - haseotakaeda (04/22/2013) [-]
I don't know why you ******* complain about being able to arm yourselves
Like christ, the amendment was written in a time when people needed guns,
and don't give me the "it's part of our history" bs, you dont see japanese people walking around with swords
User avatar #61 to #57 - leanonwut (04/22/2013) [-]
I live in an area where crime is high and guns on the street illegally is very common. It is actually recommended to those who buy house in this area that they take classes/training for firearms and that they also buy(legally) a home defense weapon. Sure if I lived in some high-class gated community that was safe and secure, I wouldn't feel the need for a gun. But in this city, it's a must have. This is an area where you are very likely to find yourself thinking "It's me or them." Thankfully the local law enforcement offices have made it possible for civilians to take proper training.
User avatar #807 to #57 - Onemanretardpack (04/23/2013) [-]
It was also written in a time when people needed free speech. They had no idea about the internet or texting, so maybe your rights don't extend to those things
User avatar #52 to #49 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
Ok so by Your logic if someone else can Illegaly aquire guns (from which the police with this new law will try to stop) you must have them to becuase **** it I GON PROTEC MA FREEDUMS

where i lived in england it was pretty ruff but the chances of being shot was very very low police dont **** around with that **** .
There was more fear of being stabbed if someone wants to harm you or break in they ******* will but without laws you just make it easier you cant stop this **** no but why not make it harder to do so less do it?


#65 to #52 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
by putting more bans you restrict lawful people. in comparison to america, the UK has 20% of the population as the USA but the crime only drops to 50% of the USA's. the UK has a firearms ban and there are still around 50 or more gun murders year. this shows that this policy fails on a national level.
all cities where such policy has been enacted in the USA have shown no significant drop in gun crime. these policies fail on a municipal level.
americans love our guns and they are a right guaranteed by the constitution, the supreme law of our land.
User avatar #72 to #65 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
Americans who want guns to stay always use the ITS MA RIT AS MERICAN MAN TO PROTECT MA FAMILYSS

but banning guns is not just about that think of all those retarded christian rednecks with there inbred son who wants to go shoot up a school cause he hates life and uncle freedum keeps touching him where does he go to get that gun thats right from good ol daddy he goes into school kills some kids then gets killed by someone else with a gun who thinks he did good.
Now if that kids dad did not have a gun he would most likely hang himself.

#83 to #72 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
so because of the minority, the majority should loose rights? if daddy recalls his NRA safety course, he should have his guns secured in a safe or other equivalent. the easier, cheaper, and legal solution, is education. you cant legislate common sense, but you CAN educate people.
User avatar #94 to #83 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
80% of america are religious the main people who are retarded and have guns and misuse them are redneck dumb Christians almost all rednecks are religious.

When i use the term religoius i think dumb.
Religous people to me are ignorant people who are hypercrites and if you dont agree with them then your opinoin is wrong that is stupid right?

Im not being funny but Americans lack common sense and the education system is not that good in america.

And what you said because of the minority, the majority should loose rights with america it should be because of the majority, the minority should loose rights


Forgive english i russia
#120 to #94 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure that you've never been to America. Even if we only outnumber the idiots 2/1, we still outnumber them. America is still a land of people who can be reasoned with. I am religious, but i LOVE science as well, I'm a reasonable person and you should have been one too. I also come from Texas, which happens to be known as the most weak minded state in America. Please don't use the internet as a source of viable information, it will only make you stupid. Smart anon away.
User avatar #197 to #120 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
How does that make you smart?

You love the positive things you get from science to benifit you then you disregard all our theory's and proof of everything.

And yes i have been to america and where else am i going to get statistics?
did you go around all of america and ask each person there IQ to make a statement of 2/1 see with statistics i could say 7/10 americans are fat now if you counter this as if it was a real fact or statement you therefor think it is possible so me saying my statistics and people countering them shows they also think its a possibility.
#114 to #94 - ogloko (04/22/2013) [-]
gun owners in america are not a radical, fringe element as you have described. but those are probably the stereotypes that reach russia. the "80%" is the people who say they are religious. only about 36% actually attend regular services.

gun owners make up around 47% of of the american population. i dont care what you think about religious people, it has no place in this dialogue
User avatar #43 to #42 - trojandetected (04/22/2013) [-]
Well i ******** that up

CANT*
#609 to #35 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
Walmart does the same background checks everyone else does.
User avatar #414 - youcame (04/23/2013) [-]
Guy crafts a bomb and kills people, we blame the guy
Guy gets drunk and hits someone with his car, we blame the guy.
Guy shoots someone with a gun, we blame the gun?
User avatar #731 to #414 - foliap (04/23/2013) [-]
>we give the disgruntled, going mentally unstable person an easy killing weapon.

User avatar #515 to #414 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
Guns are literally for killing people, and they need to be regulated more. Cars are sometimes dangerous but serve a purpose, and people are always gonna be able to make improvised bombs or whatever. But guns are designed to kill multiple things at a distance and efficiently, and it needs to be harder to get them.
User avatar #702 to #515 - SonofChuck ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-]
How does anything you just said, make what he said any less true?
User avatar #799 to #702 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
We don't blame the gun, we want to make it harder for people like the shooter to get.
#160 - mankey (04/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#350 to #160 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
as if the issue just goes away because you're bored of it? i don't think this works with politics buddy. issues are long running, especially ones with constitutional implications like this.
User avatar #375 to #350 - mankey (04/22/2013) [-]
As if arguing the issue over and over again, with people who have no political authority, using extreme hyperbole examples, will have any constitutional implications.

Take this kind of **** to a political board and scream at each other about being "gun hating pussies" or "gun loving rednecks" there. Or better yet, write to your representative, that's what they're there for.

Nobody here gives a **** or could do anything about it if they did, I doubt Obama flicks through FunnyJunk trying to decide policies.
#523 to #375 - slickwilly (04/23/2013) [-]
I like you.   
   
In a non-gay but totally homosexual way.   
   
But seriously, well said.
I like you.

In a non-gay but totally homosexual way.

But seriously, well said.
#593 to #160 - arstya (04/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#480 to #474 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
sir i applaud that picture good job golf claps to you
#464 - thatkiddonovan (04/23/2013) [-]
Everyone is arguing   
   
And here I am, still respecting your positions.
Everyone is arguing

And here I am, still respecting your positions.
User avatar #484 to #464 - zzforrest (04/23/2013) [-]
Th... Thank you thatkiddonovan-san... *blushes*
User avatar #419 - bakinboy (04/23/2013) [-]
Australia bans guns= more crime
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoAFOHbicqE
User avatar #446 to #427 - bakinboy (04/23/2013) [-]
the clip is pretty bias.
whenever they talk about the decline in crime, robberies, suicides, murders, they add on the phrase "with the use of guns"
What they aren't saying is that these crimes still occur without the use of guns. Crime rates overall have actually increased since Australia's gun ban, about 20% in most cases such as with home invasions and assaults since the offenders don't have to worry about retaliation.

also, the guy from the NRA is a ******* idiot. Back ground checks should definitely be mandatory. I like the Daily Show, but you've got to remember, it's not an unbiased news source.
#417 - zorororonoa (04/23/2013) [-]
<---entire comment section
<---entire comment section
User avatar #412 - tealkangaroo (04/23/2013) [-]
it's just supposed to make it harder for people to get them in the first place

why bother putting a lock on your door when someone could simply break through the window?
#722 to #412 - blackberryjack (04/23/2013) [-]
It keeps out those who aren't smart enough to try the window.
User avatar #725 to #722 - tealkangaroo (04/23/2013) [-]
that's my point
User avatar #729 to #725 - blackberryjack (04/23/2013) [-]
LOL My bad, I just read that the wrong way.
#126 - xheavymetalx (04/22/2013) [-]
Major strawman fallacy up in this bitch
User avatar #125 - xkmarcus (04/22/2013) [-]
Meanwhile, someone who's drunk and angry doesn't have a quick and easy murder weapon
#782 to #125 - anon (04/23/2013) [-]
You imply, of course, that drunks can aim.
User avatar #169 to #125 - roninneko (04/22/2013) [-]
Right. Because a broken bottle is SO much less deadly than a gun.
User avatar #189 to #169 - xkmarcus (04/22/2013) [-]
Exactly....
#642 to #189 - roninneko (04/23/2013) [-]
Ever seen a drunk try to aim a firearm? They can't work it for 			****		. They have to be point blank to be a threat, which is when you react using the skills that every citizen should know to defend themselves and take their lives into their own hands:
Ever seen a drunk try to aim a firearm? They can't work it for **** . They have to be point blank to be a threat, which is when you react using the skills that every citizen should know to defend themselves and take their lives into their own hands:
User avatar #721 to #642 - youjustlossthegame (04/23/2013) [-]
In the midst of all this butthurt, your comment is beautiful.
User avatar #176 to #169 - bladeboy ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
It is though....
User avatar #512 to #169 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
It's much ******* less deadly.
#632 to #512 - roninneko (04/23/2013) [-]
Guns and knives both work the same way: tissue trauma. Most gunshot wounds are survivable (approximately 90-95%, in fact); most killshots must hit a major blood vessel or other vital part of the cardiovascular system to truly risk the life of the target.

Knives work the same way: you have to hit a major blood vessel or rupture a major cardiovascular organ to guarantee a kill, and even then it can be unlikely if medical help arrives fast enough. I am about as likely to die from a stab wound to the stomach as I am from a gunshot wound to the stomach, depending on the type of ammunition.

In fact, knives are often more deadly then guns in one-on-one combat, because:
- guns run out of ammunition
- you can stab-and-rip with a blade (bury the blade in a target and then drag it through the flesh laterally), whereas a bullet moves in a straight line
- if you're close enough to use a blade, you have next to no chance of missing a vital area (femoral artery, jugular vein, etc.)
User avatar #800 to #632 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
Guns kill people easier and cleaner, and they're more surprising. Guns make mass murders possible, because no one can get close enough to stop them.
User avatar #802 to #800 - roninneko (04/23/2013) [-]
Original argument was that a drunk with a gun would be more deadly than a drunk with anything else.
User avatar #813 to #802 - condormcninja (04/23/2013) [-]
Drunks wouldn't grab for a gun anyway though.
User avatar #815 to #813 - roninneko (04/23/2013) [-]
Change the fact that that was the argument i was refuting.
#724 - keritethekiller (04/23/2013) [-]
Imagine if liberals weren't trying to ban all guns, they were just trying to tighten laws and ban unnecessary assault weapons. Hahaha who would believe that? Good thing I don't actually pay attention to politics otherwise I might realize that my party is retarded and everything I say is ******** ...... Average conservative.
User avatar #770 to #724 - Keleth (04/23/2013) [-]
there is no go reason to ban a shotgun with a ******* pistol grip and foregrip, its purely to make the gun more comfortable in my hands. quite frankly i hate rifle stocks and standard shotgun grips, easier to hold and easier to control recoil. but apparently if i own one i'm going to go on a ******* killing spree.
#814 to #770 - keritethekiller (04/23/2013) [-]
I don't agree with the entire agenda, just better background checks and safety laws.
[ 832 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)