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. yep Crap Well I guess we' ll just go home then Darn those liberals and Their weapons bans!!! Kinda wanted some registration laws That's ok though you guys can keep being deluded
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (832)
[ 832 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
221 comments displayed.
#1 - gardenjustice
Reply +175
(04/22/2013) [-]
Kinda just wanted some registration laws. That's ok though, you guys can keep being deluded.
#155 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's like you Americans genuinely don't understand that when guns are banned, gun crime drops dramatically. O_o
#199 to #156 - gardenjustice
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That's not an option here.
#177 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
New background check laws would have not prevented Sandy Hook, VT, or Columbine. Just sayin'.
#499 to #177 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
in general, you can't prevent things that happen in the past.
#762 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
>Live in Illinois
>Have some of the strictest gun/ registration laws
>******* keep killing each other in chicago and rockford anyways
#384 to #1 - Whetstone
Reply +2
(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
Reply +309
(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
#66 to #3 - wiseguytwo
Reply +8
(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
#553 to #66 - captainrattrap
Reply +1
(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
Reply +3
(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!!!!
#633 to #599 - captainrattrap
Reply +1
(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.
#653 to #633 - wiseguytwo
Reply +3
(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
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
you two just made me a happy person, I would like very much to buy you both a drink.
#808 to #714 - wiseguytwo
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Why is that?
#809 to #808 - stormtrooperface
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
the debate is well thought out and no one is jumping to conclusions.
#810 to #809 - wiseguytwo
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Well then, I'll gladly take that drink. What are you offering?
#811 to #810 - stormtrooperface
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
whatever you are having.
#569 to #553 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Because there isn't a reason to ban them at all.
#574 to #569 - captainrattrap
Reply 0
(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.
#718 to #574 - eliteqtip
Reply 0
(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.
#668 to #574 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#587 to #584 - captainrattrap
Reply -1
(04/23/2013) [-]
I'm not going to argue with an anon that doesn't even read my whole comment.
#595 to #587 - anon
Reply 0
(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."
#664 to #595 - wiseguytwo
Reply 0
(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
Reply +7
(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
Reply +1
(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.
#657 to #482 - cabbagemayhem
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
It was thrown out? Thank god. Faith restored in our government and constitution.
#688 to #657 - deathstare
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Well, don't just take someone's word for it. Do some backup research and ssstuffff
#689 to #688 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
I will.
#694 to #689 - deathstare
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Ok mom
#581 to #3 - ThePleasureman
Reply +3
(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.
#697 to #3 - drewbridge ONLINE
Reply +2
(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)

#453 to #3 - kaitheguy
Reply +1
(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.
#761 to #3 - clockworkmage
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
And thank you for being rational, good sir. I applaud you.
#753 to #3 - burdenedsoul
Reply 0
(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
#654 to #3 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(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.
#660 to #654 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
True, true...yours is definitely the most level-headed response to my comment, and I don't implicitly disagree with you
#602 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
why do i always over think this argument..? You, sir, just put me to shame.
#562 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#402 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
its not about "having something to hide" you *******
#334 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
go to hell, fudd.
#51 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(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
#4 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(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
#14 to #4 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
Anon, come here bro.
We go to /k/, down some shots. You're cool.
#597 to #3 - dumerveil
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#607 to #597 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#614 to #607 - dumerveil
-5
has deleted their comment [-]
#622 to #614 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +3
(04/23/2013) [-]
How's Philosophy 101 going?
#10 to #3 - localcatbarber
Reply -1
(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?
#13 to #10 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +2
(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
#16 to #13 - localcatbarber
Reply 0
(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.
#20 to #16 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +1
(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
#12 to #10 - therealtjthemedic
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Why is anyone a proud anything?
#15 to #12 - localcatbarber
Reply 0
(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?
#17 to #15 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +2
(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?'
#18 to #17 - localcatbarber
Reply 0
(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.
#19 to #18 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +3
(04/22/2013) [-]
what is hunting
what is target shooting
#22 to #19 - localcatbarber
Reply 0
(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.
#23 to #22 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well, that's your opinion, not mine, I guess.
#24 to #23 - localcatbarber
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Let's agree on diagreeing then.
Let's agree on diagreeing then.
#713 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
You could also question why people are proud of the car itself.
#373 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
I don't really understand why you got thumbs down... Because of the "God bless" maybe???
Hmm.
#128 to #18 - anon
Reply 0
(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
#449 to #128 - ilovehitler
Reply -1
(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.
#526 to #3 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3
(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.
#30 - brockyboi
Reply +83
(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.
#69 to #30 - ogloko
Reply -1
(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
#234 to #69 - brockyboi
Reply -3
(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
Reply +3
(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
#416 to #276 - brockyboi
Reply -1
(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.
#719 to #416 - youjustlossthegame
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
#460 to #416 - ogloko
Reply +1
(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)
#82 to #30 - anon
Reply 0
(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
#252 to #82 - jointure
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
#459 to #30 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#744 to #30 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#242 to #30 - wliia
Reply +1
(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.
#505 to #242 - condormcninja
Reply +1
(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.
#655 to #30 - JoshBauer
Reply +1
(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.
#7 - einhetvin
Reply +82
(04/22/2013) [-]
This is retarded
This is retarded
#229 to #7 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#270 to #229 - einhetvin
Reply -1
(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.
#535 to #7 - twofreegerbils
Reply +1
(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
Reply +10
(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
#277 to #8 - studbeefpile
Reply +5
(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.
#634 to #277 - maxcarnage
Reply -1
(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
#530 to #277 - condormcninja
Reply -1
(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.
#549 to #530 - studbeefpile
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about regulation, I'm all for gun regulation. I'm talking about full illegalization.
#798 to #549 - condormcninja
Reply -1
(04/23/2013) [-]
No one is talking about that.
#295 to #277 - einhetvin
Reply -2
(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
Reply +5
(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
Reply +5
(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.
#335 to #295 - studbeefpile
Reply +1
(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.
#38 to #8 - arkfire
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
The second amendment is not about hunting but protecting ourselves from tyranny by our government and the criminal element.
#40 to #38 - einhetvin
Reply +2
(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
Reply +5
(04/22/2013) [-]
america is not every other country. we need to stop assimilating to global trends and actually do what works for us
#268 to #77 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply +2
(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
Reply 0
(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
Reply +2
(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
#536 to #77 - condormcninja
Reply -1
(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
Reply +1
(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
#789 to #40 - arkfire
Reply +1
(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".
#103 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#533 to #40 - condormcninja
Reply -1
(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
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#35 - haseotakaeda
Reply +43
(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
#99 to #35 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
You can buy lethal knives in ******* walmart..
#695 to #99 - deathstare
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
you can buy lethal knifes at a kitchen appliance shop too
#133 to #35 - dangosevenonethree
Reply 0
(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.
#609 to #35 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Walmart does the same background checks everyone else does.
#39 to #35 - leanonwut
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
That would make it gun restrictions, not gun bans.
#47 to #39 - haseotakaeda
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well i'm assuming via either a ban or restriction, you still couldn't buy it at a walmart
#76 to #47 - Onemanretardpack
Reply +1
(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
#250 to #76 - haseotakaeda
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
>Implying it wouldn't be a good thing to reduce these crimes by 1/4th
#803 to #250 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0
(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
#354 to #250 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#392 to #354 - haseotakaeda
Reply -1
(04/23/2013) [-]
>implying that crime rates wouldn't go down if not everyone had a walmart gun in their broom closet
#801 to #392 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0
(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
#804 to #801 - haseotakaeda
Reply 0
(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
#806 to #804 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0
(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
#805 to #804 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#50 to #47 - leanonwut
Reply -1
(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.
#42 to #39 - trojandetected
Reply -1
(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?
#43 to #42 - trojandetected
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well i ******** that up

CANT*
#44 to #42 - leanonwut
Reply -3
(04/22/2013) [-]
You're logic is ridiculous. I'm not even gonna argue with you.
#46 to #44 - trojandetected
Reply 0
(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
#49 to #46 - leanonwut
Reply -2
(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.
#58 to #49 - dinkcool
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
The is no such thing as a person who is safe with a weapon.
#62 to #58 - leanonwut
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
You must be one of those people who are afraid of everything.
#116 to #62 - haseotakaeda
Reply 0
(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
#64 to #62 - dinkcool
Reply 0
(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.
#57 to #49 - haseotakaeda
Reply 0
(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
#807 to #57 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0
(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
#61 to #57 - leanonwut
Reply 0
(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.
#52 to #49 - trojandetected
Reply -2
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#72 to #65 - trojandetected
Reply -2
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#94 to #83 - trojandetected
Reply -1
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#197 to #120 - trojandetected
Reply -1
(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
Reply 0
(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
#274 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +27
(04/22/2013) [-]
#424 to #274 - masterboll
Reply -5
(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
#494 to #424 - whaawhaa
Reply +4
(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.
#452 to #424 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
They do the same thing and hold the same amount of rounds.
#618 to #274 - spysappinmysasha
Reply -2
(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
Reply +1
(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.
#652 to #639 - spysappinmysasha
Reply -2
(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.
#759 to #652 - blackberryjack
Reply +1
(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.
#758 to #652 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Exactly the military and police don't need them to protect us.
#666 to #652 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(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.
#673 to #666 - spysappinmysasha
Reply -1
(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
Reply 0
(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?
#699 to #682 - spysappinmysasha
Reply -1
(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.
#703 to #699 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
A korean gun company makes drum mags for all types of guns. Like glocks and even the mini 14.
#756 to #618 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(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.
#316 to #274 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply +4
(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.
#379 to #274 - scorcho
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
hmm... bone stock supra or tasteless ricer supra.
#418 to #274 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#481 to #418 - yourasiangamer
Reply 0
(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.
#462 to #418 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(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.
#132 - somenerd
Reply +22
(04/22/2013) [-]
#613 to #132 - badgerclan
Reply +1
(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.
#649 to #613 - tallestmidget
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
top one has a bayonet also
#650 to #649 - badgerclan
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Odd, I somehow didn't see that. Well, free history lesson for everybody!
#736 to #649 - coolcalx
Reply -1
(04/23/2013) [-]
the bottom "bayonet" (that's a ******* knife, but whatever) would be deadlier than the top bayonet.
#37 - iforgetwhattosay
Reply +19
(04/22/2013) [-]
if you're going to bash the idea of banning guns, do it with some form of logical argument. this is just silly.
#56 to #37 - ogloko
Reply -2
(04/22/2013) [-]
something silly???? no logic or reasoning???? ON FUNNYjunk??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

the nerve of some people
#659 to #37 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
If you're going to bash this argument, do it with some form of logical comeback. That was just silly.
#476 - ivoryhammer
Reply +15
(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. *********.
#661 to #476 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(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.
#665 to #661 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0
(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.
#669 to #665 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Also, many would've thought the Viet Cong wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. Guerrilla warfare, my friend.
#667 to #665 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(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.
#671 to #667 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0
(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.
#675 to #671 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(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.
#676 to #675 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0
(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.
#678 to #676 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(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.
#490 to #476 - roliga
Reply +2
(04/23/2013) [-]
The second is the only thing keeping the other ones around
#620 to #490 - badgerclan
Reply +1
(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.
#706 to #620 - roliga
Reply 0
(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.
#720 to #706 - badgerclan
Reply 0
(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.
#732 to #720 - roliga
Reply 0
(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.
#751 to #732 - badgerclan
Reply 0
(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
Reply +2
(04/23/2013) [-]
2nd Amendment is technically the most important.

Without the second there is no way to defend the others.
#21 - newall
Reply +15
(04/22/2013) [-]
oh god, you gun nuts are so stupid.

The law obama wanted to pass wasn't to "ban guns" or make purchasing firarms more difficult, it was literally JUST background checks on people who wanted to buy guns.

If you aren't a violent criminal, then you have nothing to fear.
#25 to #21 - douthit
Reply -5
(04/22/2013) [-]
It didn't pass because it would made it illegal for anyone except the owner of a firearm to have it in their possession, turning millions of shooters into instant criminals.
#456 to #25 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
I must be misunderstanding, but why the **** would you have a gun in your possession if it isn't yours?
#601 to #456 - ThePleasureman
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
I keep some guns at my house that are my grandfathers because his safe isnt big enough. That law passes im suddenly a crimminal.
#627 to #601 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Oh, then I did misunderstand. I thought he was saying that if you were actively using them or something.

Damn, that does suck balls.
#788 to #456 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
You obviously aren't a shooter. Many people loan out guns to their family and friends to take to a range. But "possession" would also mean leaving a gun at home while someone else is there, but you're not. Or leaving a gun you keep locked in your car, but forget about and allow someone else to drive. Or letting someone else shoot a gun while you're standing next to them, because even then the gun is technically in their possession.
#594 to #456 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Because some people actually do recreational shooting.
#71 to #21 - ogloko
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
theres no need for any addition to the gun laws. enforcement of current statutes would achieve the same end
#422 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
I don't know if you noticed the assault weapons ban amendment that was put into it...
#772 to #21 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Its a stepping stone to worse stuff.

I'm sorry "Gun nuts" love their rights. Just like we gay people love our ability to get married in some states. We enjoy our freedom.

You saying that banning the sale of guns isn't the same banning guns is the same as saying "No more gay people can get married" isn't banning marriage equality.
#590 to #21 - ThePleasureman
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
the law in my state (maryland) did ban guns it was praised by Obama

And it was admitted that this registration BS was the first steps to the banning of certain cosmetic features and actual firearms
#125 - xkmarcus
Reply +12
(04/22/2013) [-]
Meanwhile, someone who's drunk and angry doesn't have a quick and easy murder weapon
#169 to #125 - roninneko
Reply -5
(04/22/2013) [-]
Right. Because a broken bottle is SO much less deadly than a gun.
#189 to #169 - xkmarcus
Reply +6
(04/22/2013) [-]
Exactly....
#642 to #189 - roninneko
Reply 0
(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:
#721 to #642 - youjustlossthegame
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
In the midst of all this butthurt, your comment is beautiful.
#176 to #169 - bladeboy ONLINE
Reply +3
(04/22/2013) [-]
It is though....
#512 to #169 - condormcninja
Reply +1
(04/23/2013) [-]
It's much ******* less deadly.
#632 to #512 - roninneko
Reply 0
(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.)
#800 to #632 - condormcninja
Reply 0
(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.
#802 to #800 - roninneko
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Original argument was that a drunk with a gun would be more deadly than a drunk with anything else.
#813 to #802 - condormcninja
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Drunks wouldn't grab for a gun anyway though.
#815 to #813 - roninneko
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
Change the fact that that was the argument i was refuting.
#782 to #125 - anon
Reply 0
(04/23/2013) [-]
You imply, of course, that drunks can aim.