Switzerland Y U DO DIS. lol. Kenneth HMS! mm Switzerland, Eh? I IN L' cannis Twi, Elias, i, WEST mum , and this. AS. Yale Emma , dhi. They have a very well regulated militia then...


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - jimjimmerson (06/11/2013) [-]
They have a very well regulated militia then...
#21 to #2 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
I'm going to get flamed the **** out of for this but,

Every man between the ages of 17-45 is in the militia as per the dick (lolol) act of 1903. It organized the people into 3 groups, the military, the militia (the national guard) and the unorganized militia.

Then, the court case US versus Miller (if I'm wrong I'm sure someone would be kind enough to assist me.) basically stated that weapons in common use with the military are protected by the second.

so technically, that should repeal the hughes amendment because civilians can't own machine guns made after 1986 and have to go through numerous hoops and spend a fortune.

Now one final thing, back at that point, regulated meant trained.
I apologize for the wall of text, have a good day!
User avatar #132 to #21 - jimjimmerson (06/11/2013) [-]
I'm fully aware that the words "well regulated" mean trained.

I just wanted to make a joke.
#26 - matralith (06/11/2013) [-]
Switzerland actually sounds like a pretty cool country.
User avatar #33 to #26 - comradegeneral (06/11/2013) [-]
It is but some sand people are about ruined it.
#15 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account** (06/11/2013) [-]
So it's simple. You have right to bear arms but stricter ammo control.
So it's simple. You have right to bear arms but stricter ammo control.
#29 to #15 - newall (06/11/2013) [-]

you can't shoot a gun without ammo.

The only problem being that there are far more homes in the US to search and regulate, ammo wise.

Also, reloading is a thing.
#35 to #29 - theshadowed (06/11/2013) [-]
You can't shoot MOST guns without ammo.

For my joke gunpowder doesn't count as ammunition
#222 to #35 - newall (06/11/2013) [-]

User avatar #27 to #15 - dieselthedragon (06/11/2013) [-]
but what about hand loads?
User avatar #57 to #15 - luiselvergas (06/11/2013) [-]
arms plural of arms (Noun)
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms"
User avatar #17 to #15 - WastedDrudge (06/11/2013) [-]
haha reminds me of Chris Rock

User avatar #23 to #17 - lolfire (06/11/2013) [-]
If a bullet cost $5000 there would be no more innocent bystanders.

Man I'd blow your ******* head off....... If I could afford it.

#48 to #23 - afternoon (06/11/2013) [-]
Well the cost of the material to make a bullet isnt that high so people would just illegally make them and sell them for much cheaper, unless you are saying that hypothetically the material did cost that much, in that case nevermind.
Well the cost of the material to make a bullet isnt that high so people would just illegally make them and sell them for much cheaper, unless you are saying that hypothetically the material did cost that much, in that case nevermind.
#52 to #48 - veryspecialagent (06/11/2013) [-]
it's a joke... by chris rock... from the link.......
#83 to #52 - afternoon (06/11/2013) [-]
Ah gotcha, I didnt watch it so
Ah gotcha, I didnt watch it so
User avatar #10 - jokersaysamuseme (06/11/2013) [-]
Why does Switzerland do this?

Because they're ******* SMART!
#140 - turbodoosh (06/11/2013) [-]
What everyone has a gun, no ammo but no one else knows if you have ammo or not? I kinda makes sense right? B/c more people are afraid of the actual gun and not the bullets
#24 - pharoc (06/11/2013) [-]
all i could think about after reading that comment
User avatar #128 to #67 - thespecialone (06/11/2013) [-]
where's that from? that hetalia thing named anime?
User avatar #150 to #128 - legodude (06/11/2013) [-]
Yes it is from Hetalia.
#135 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
Search for 'The Killing of America (1982) Uncut' on Youtube. It's a great documentary about violence and guns in America. Obviously it's a bit old but it is still pretty eye-opening.
User avatar #12 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
It's odd to me why everyone is arguing about guns

Yes, I get the whole 'gun debate' and 'people kill people' thing, but has anyone bothered to ask WHY this happened? You know, what's the SOURCE of this crime?

Crime always happens for a reason. I mean, America talks about its "War on drugs" all the time, but they never talk about a "War on poverty" or "War on ignorance" (poverty and lack of education being one of the leading causes of crimes in the entire world). I mean, nobody just commits crimes to commit crimes unless they are insane or just evil, and if they are then removing guns won't stop them from killing people anyways, now will it? I mean, if people shoot other people because they feel threatened, why not take a different approach to it, as in, teach martial arts in Highschool or something. That way, not only will people be more enticed to be physically fit and active, they will be able to defend themselves all the better (thus reducing the chances of them using a gun for protection) AND it will make them more confident, which will have the same result (and will also help in all other aspects of life)

Seriously, don't try to FIGHT crime, because crime is an inherit part of law, just like chaos is an inherit part of order; if one exists, so shall the other, no exception or ending. Instead, simply make it...out-dated (I.E. If all drugs were decriminalized and regulated at your local pharmacy, half the reason for gangs and their profits would be wiped clean in a day. Release gun restrictions, and the other half of their profits will sink wildly as well. People steal for money? Try to make more job openings that give higher wages. Rape on the rise? Legalize prostitution and regulate it to be safe and healthy. Drunk driving? "Buy X amount of drinks and we will pay for your cab ride home" or some deal like that). Most crimes are crimes of opportunity, so don't try to stop crime, simply make better opportunities in a legal manner
#102 to #12 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
Most of your arguments are valid.

Except the one about rape. That's one of the most ******* stupid things I've ever read.
User avatar #105 to #102 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
It was just an example. I just mean a hard working citizen such as yourself shouldn't have to pay for the life of a man who ruins the lives of others. If you are not a benefit to mankind, I will take it upon myself to make you one any way possible as to benefit everyone else and undue the wrongs you have commited
User avatar #190 to #12 - lasmamoe (06/11/2013) [-]
******* thank you!
User avatar #199 to #12 - infamousking (06/11/2013) [-]
I want you for president.
User avatar #217 to #199 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
I'd be socialist, I'd control nearly every aspect of corporate and economy (note that I only want to control the Economy, not you. You will retain full rights to privacy, human rights provided you do not commit crimes, and I will be arming you and teaching you tactics and warfare if you ever find me an unfair ruler so you can feel free to behead me). You okay with that?
User avatar #209 to #12 - psychopsychedelic (06/11/2013) [-]
How dare you use logic when arguing with Americans.

We don't have that here!
User avatar #220 to #12 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
To those of you wondering, I actually do want to start my own political party (New Socialist Party of Canada) and run for Prime Minister. I just need enough supporters as I imagine my policies will either be popular or...well, not
#60 to #12 - veryspecialagent (06/11/2013) [-]
Your theory sounds good on paper, but it's hardly practical in real life.

Take... I think it's Portugal, who legalized all drugs. Just because they're legal doesn't mean people aren't abusing them. And with highly addictive drugs like heroine and meth people will do just about anything for their next fix. Now you have more people even more dependent on drugs, and crime rate will just rise in other areas as they fall in drugs related areas.

Also economics comes into play. Some people will always settle for that uncertified $20 hooker with herpes rather than paying the $200 for a certified hooker. Now you have STD covered meth-heads and medical insurance taxes (which I'm guessing you'd also want government regulated) go through the roof. The USA isn't socialist, and it's not gonna be anytime soon. Why do you want the government controlling everything?
User avatar #78 to #60 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Well, if we had a responsible government, it would only make sense for it to control everything as most adults can often act like children, endangering themselves and others. If I had it my way, I would change many things around (especially in America). I would decrease the military budget extremely to the point where it would be more of a massive task-force than a military (and in exchange, I would fund them to be the best soldiers and have the best weapons and vehicles. Quality over quantity and all that jazz). I would have a work-force of prisoners paid slave wages to do menial labour as well as work nobody really wants to do (and they would be happy to do this because if they do well, I will offer them a new life without a record and a job offer, and if they do poorly I will send them to die, which I will explain now) while more 'heavy duty' prisoners (Rapists, murders, serial killers, paedophiles, so on, so fourth) would be taken and experimented on for free medical research. If the 'lesser' prisoners refused to work, I would send them to be experimented on as well. This way I wouldn't have to pay for the maintenance of prisoners, guards, or buildings and could replace them with energy mills, schools, hospitals, parks, farm-land, or whatever I require. I would take all religious donations and cut religious funding and tax practitioners (so that being a priest or anything like that would be out of volunteering and charity, from YOUR pocket, not your followers). I would fire all other politicians and advisor's and only have a panel of experts in whatever field I must deal with at the moment. Manage welfare so that only those working to better themselves receive my assistance

Using all this money I could fund hospitals, education, environmental care, social programs and whatever else I needed to improve the general welfare of life over-all, be damned the moral or ethical implications I may come across

But hey, that's just me
User avatar #68 to #60 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
If it sounds good on paper, the problem is not the idea, it's the execution.

It's true people can abuse them, but by making little money in criminal activities there will be less criminals in general, which will mean more abusers will come to the pharmacy to get their fix and we will be able to give them powerful, but manageable doses so they do not have an 'itch', yet they can still be productive members of society (we can also treat addiction as a disability rather than a crime, and offer help rather than punishment, which will yield far better results). Besides, the real harm of drugs doesn't come from the drug itself, but what people are willing to do to get their 'fix', that's where they start committing crimes themselves, pimp out their children, risk their health, so on, so fourth; if we made it easier to get in cheap quantities, they wouldn't have that urge.

More people dependent upon it? Absolutely not, as we will educate the public about it and teach personal responsibility and good-will, rather than self-pleasure and gains. Even if that doesn't work, we can isolate certain parts of the drug to make it safer or smaller, or more hazardous whilst not being 'dangerous' (so kids will try it, get sick, have a horrible experience with little pleasure, and never want it again). That's why you deal in whatever crime deals in, as mentioned before. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity, if you simply give better ones, logic states crime will either decrease or go on to more manageable means

Nope, as that person would probably be tried and convicted of 'endangerment of the public' anyways. Although instead of sending her to prison, I could help treat her. Eh, so-so, I believe in personal responsibility, that if you put yourself in a bad situation, you deserve whatever happens to you. The only exception is when your bad choices affect others, in which case I would step in to help and assist (more for their sake than your own).
#75 to #68 - veryspecialagent (06/11/2013) [-]
You still haven't answered why your ideal version of the USA is a socialist gov. Where are you from?
User avatar #79 to #75 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
My ideal version of the WORLD is socialist (provided the government is good, uncorrupt, doesn't let feelings get in the way or progress, and has humanities best interest at heart). I am from Canada
#85 to #79 - veryspecialagent (06/11/2013) [-]
Well friend, you are the most disturbing canadian I've ever come across, and I think you should apologize on behalf of your country (Your used to it). But your not talking about a socialism, you're talking about a dictatorship, and your ideas are unethical, disgusting, and old. I am truly disappointed in you. I always find I'm let down by people expressing an interest in the future politics, only to find out their ideas are idiotic.
User avatar #93 to #85 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Eh, you can think whatever you like of me. Frankly, I could say the same to you, considering you let morals and ethics, something that not only changes with every culture (and sometimes state or province), but changes every 50 or so years as well stop humanity from progressing in a tight and rational way.

Indeed, that's what everyone I've come across and told has called it, but that does not mean it is 'wrong' or incorrect. Again, morals change every 50 or so years, they should hold no sway in the long run. Unethical? Perhaps. Disgusting? Sure. Old? Maybe. But while you see making prisoners into lab rats unethical, I see forcing you to pay for the health and feeding of the man who raped and murdered a 9 year old girl (which could have been your daughter) as unethical. While you see it as disgusting, I see it as perfectly logical and reasonable to treat people who squabble over the most petty of things (like colour of your skin, or what country you're from) like children until they prove otherwise, and where you might see it as old, I see it as wisdom taken from ancient sources. Charles Darwin once said it is he who adapts the best that survives the worst, and while it is true that hanging on to tradition kills us, that doesn't mean we cannot learn from old wisdom and the trial and errors of the past

And I am disappointed in YOU, good sir, as you see something as completely irrational and idiotic simply because it doesn't agree with your point of view. Now which one of us has an 'old' perspective?
#98 to #93 - feeding (06/11/2013) [-]
I didn't rape or murdered a 9 year old girl.    
- feeding
I didn't rape or murdered a 9 year old girl.
- feeding
User avatar #100 to #98 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to file false charges against you

I love you
User avatar #104 to #100 - feeding (06/11/2013) [-]
I forgive you.
Because I am feeding.
User avatar #106 to #104 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
The same guy who raped and/or murdered that nine year old?
#227 to #93 - veryspecialagent (06/12/2013) [-]
Morals and ethics do chage every once in a while, mostly though, for the better. You're wanting to go backwards, not to mention it's hypocritical to say that ethics and morals are preventing us from being "tight and rational" because they change so frequently, so you propose that we change our ethics and morals to your point of thinking...

You also fail to realize the irony in the fact that it's okay to kill prisoners through torture in experimentation and hard labor, because they killed someone child. That person that you're so enthusiastic to kill is someone else's child. So maybe you should take your own advice at that time and turn yourself in for being a murderer because you gave someone a death sentence. Better yet, just off yourself now before you get the chance to actually hurt someone.

To wrap this up nicely, lets stop and think for a second and think about learning from past historical mistakes. Was there ever someone who interred a certain group of people, experimented on them, drove them to do hard labor, and massacred a huge amount of that select group of people?... YOU GUESSED IT! HITLER!!! So you want to learn from past mistkes by carbon copying one of the biggest mistakes ever, and becoming a glorified Hitler? No thanks.
User avatar #232 to #227 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/12/2013) [-]
Okay? Comparing me to Hitler doesn't stop me from what I want to do. You're also comparing me using a work force of prisoners as well as making harsher ones lab-rats to total genocide of a religious/ethnic group, sexual orientation, and culture. You comparing me to Hitler is a illogical and a fallacy to boot
User avatar #231 to #227 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/12/2013) [-]
Oh? And you are the one to say that something completely subjective mostly changes for the better? Let me tell you, sir, that morals and ethics are a good table conversation, but do you honestly believe people would obey them if they had much of a choice? Even your own government is free to deny human rights if they so choose, and many corporations deny certain rights from their workers (especially immigrants). I don't want to go backwards, I'm simply saying that if you choose to be a detriment to humanity, you don't deserve to be treated like a human. Absolutely not, I don't actually care about what type of morals and ethics you may have, I'm just saying you cannot let them prevent logical and rational thinking.

You make it sound like I would work the minor prisoners to death. I wouldn't. They would be paid enough to be fed and housed so the money goes back into society, and when their time is up they will have their record wiped clean and I will personally set them up with a job to reduce the risk of repeat offences. If you talk to many criminals, prison is a joke, it's like a badge of honour you get because you're 'badass' and does NOTHING to stop crime other than promote learning techniques. That's true, they are someone else's child, but just because their life is 'sacred' doesn't mean they should be spared because they chose to take a life. Besides, by that logic, you are letting people die because we do not have cures for many types of parasites, viruses, bacteria, or proper understanding of the human brain, things we all could have if we simply had a few proper lab rats. Oh? Now you're telling me to kill myself for having an innovative idea. What was all that back there about you telling me I shouldn't kill prisoners (you know, people who actually ruin lives and destroy society) because of some abstract term of 'sacred life' you still follow?
#166 to #60 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
Actually, the United States is partially socialist, due to the fact that the government does provide some services (military, postal services, roads, government loans, etc), whilst in a purely capitalist society, corporations and business (or rather one monopoly due to the lack of ANY government regulation) would provide all services and goods.
User avatar #37 to #12 - theshadowed (06/11/2013) [-]
Britain actually attempted to find faults in society, and fix them in WW2 under the Beveridge Report
User avatar #41 to #37 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Okay? Thank you, I guess
User avatar #42 to #41 - theshadowed (06/11/2013) [-]
It wasn't an argument or support, simply a statement. The more you know
User avatar #43 to #42 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Quite right
User avatar #208 to #12 - bannon (06/11/2013) [-]
Let me start off by saying that I'm Irish and I don't live in America so I don't know exactly what is going on there and is not my place to debate.

Ok so they 'War on Drugs' and various other 'War on...' topics are usually interrelated. You're talking about people feeling threatened but I remember a few months ago that a man shot a young kid because it was dark out. A lot of people said this was racially fueled but I don't really care about the motive. Thing is that he felt threatened. If he knew martial arts and a true attacker had a gun, the martial arts would be of no advantage. That may make people think that it's better to have a gun but my opinion is to be rid of all the guns and if people need them, just rent them for sporting reasons and the person must have a licence to do so. That's still no reason to not have the martial arts classes in school, I think that's a pretty good idea!

I agree that you can't have crime without the law and all aspects are intangible. However, the reason that drugs are not sold freely is that (and I sound like Mr. Mackey from South Park) drugs are bad, or at least quite an amount of them are. The government doesn't want people to use drugs. Sure if they're sold in a pharmacy, it might rid them of the taboo that's held over them but the junkies who have addiction to drugs like heroin will rob and murder for their 'fix'. At least the drug dealers have gun to protect themselves, right? I joke and I digress. Simply saying to provide jobs is one thing but actually raising wages and creating new jobs is completely different.

I like your optimistic nature but there are a few bumps in the road before this vision can be realised.
User avatar #219 to #208 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
That's true, but I would also be arming all my citizens, making guns very easy to get so that everyone can have a good ol' firefight when they want to. The way to avoid everyone blowing eachothers brains away because they want to look badass or feel threatened is by just that, teaching them how to fight hand-to-hand, that way most people will be disciplined enough to only use the weapon they have when they absolutely must). Arming my citizens comes from the fact I'm going to be cutting military budget and spending so that it's less of an "Army" and "Military" and more of just a massive task force (I will make up for it by heavily training them and arming them with the best weapons and vehicles). But since quality is still only as good as quantity is large, I need a bigger "fighting force' to be able to combat invaders, which is why nearly every person will be trained in the art of warfare and tactics, how to use firearms, survivability, first aid, and martial arts. Not only would people be less inclined to invade, but while other nations are getting ready and training for war, my country could have an excellent fighting force in half the time because most are already aptly trained

You misunderstand, sir. By decriminalizing drugs, not only am I lowering the profits of gangs and organized crime, I'm allowing junkies to get enough of their fix that they don't have to RESORT to crime and hurt others, while still being productive members of society. I mean, why would you rob and kill and risk prison sentences over something you could get cheaply, easily, and legally at your local pharmacy? Drugs are bad, but by educating people, providing help to those addicted, and breaking down criminal organizations, we can make society and the streets safer for everyone (and by taxing the drugs and no longer have to pay to make them illegal, it gives me more money to lower taxes, fund schools or medical breakthroughs, or fund engineering courses or farms and the like)
User avatar #221 to #219 - bannon (06/11/2013) [-]
I like your point in the first paragraph but the first problem is that even through all that training and discipline, some people will forego the hand-to-hand combat and take the easy option which is only a trigger click away as unfortunate as that sounds but there are people like that who (or whom, i'm not really sure) exist. Another problem lies with people that may not necessarily want to be trained. Some people try to live as peaceful life as possible and they training goes against their rights. Plus a tool in your fighting forces hands can easily become a weapon in somebody elses. If someone were to use this training against their own people, the loss of life could be devastating. Is it not best left to a select few people with varying levels of intricate training? i.e. police - army - special forces - Batman

The second paragraph, I like it. While many may not be a productive part of society while they are under the influence of their drugs, it is true that the crime rates will lower. However there will always be a select few who will never feed their habit. Personally, I'm a smoker and once I realize that I've ran out of a packet, I'll get a little panicky trying to think if I have enough money for the next pack. Now, while I will never be able to imagine what that would be like for someone addicted to a much harder substance, I can guess that it might make them do some crazy things. Plus some addicts here in Ireland have been known to try get arrested to get Methadone from the prisons for free by saying they want to be clean as it settles their urges for a short while. But I do like to believe that if drugs were available over the counter that the users of drugs will phase out especially with enough education.
User avatar #230 to #221 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/12/2013) [-]
That's true, but if that was truly the case then other people could stop them just as easily. I mean, if you wanted to commit crimes and had a gun to do it, would you still be likely to commit them knowing that every second person could ALSO have a gun and would be willing to shoot you at a moments notice?

Quite so. It IS a shame about drugs and those addicted, and to be totally honest, if it was my choice I would give them all overdoses and let them die in the gutter because they are only wastes that exist to hurt people. But these plans are not about me, they are about my people and what would be best for them and potentially even the world, and in that regard we need a good balance between discipline and reward
#18 to #12 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
"Create more jobs with high pay" hey guys, this guy just solved the economic crisis.

User avatar #19 to #18 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Says the man who has no idea how much money would be flowing into the country if you taxed and regulated all drugs, taxed and regulated all firearms, no longer had to pay to make either illegal, and no longer had to pay for 'Crime-Wars' between police and gangmembers or destruction of property or investigation caused by crime over such products, all of which is more money you could put into higher wage jobs as well as creating new jobs via innovation regarding environmental (or hey, even re-working law enforcement due to these new protocols) issues

User avatar #38 to #19 - theshadowed (06/11/2013) [-]
You can tax and regulate everything. Smuggling cuts massive chunks off profit off.
And most companies aren't owned by the government anyway, so they can't use taxes to pay their employees
User avatar #40 to #38 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
That's true, but it's better than not doing anything about it. Besides, what would they smuggle? Guns? You can get those easily. Drugs? You can get those easily. Sex? You can get that easily. The only thing they really have left to make a profit would be bootleg games or comics or what-not. In any case, after decriminalizing all that, crime wouldn't pay much anyways and considering the jail time it would be far better (profit wise) to make money a legal way (with a bit of shadiness on the side).

That's true, but I could use it to improve education or fund more research programs to help make a better quality of life for everyone
User avatar #44 to #40 - theshadowed (06/11/2013) [-]
Britain used to have a really bad smuggling problem. We solved a lot by simply lowering income tax. The more you tax stuff, unfortunately, the less stuff comes in legitimately. Question time, is Americas economy that bad?
User avatar #56 to #44 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
True, but what I gave were just examples, I was just trying to stress the need for ulterior methods of victory and crime-solving, rather than just trying to but-heads harder

From what I've heard, yes it can get that bad in some areas. And the American Economy is one of the worst in the worlds considering how much money they owe
#50 to #44 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
No,and even most of the problems he's talking about are fairly localized. Detroit, Chicago, New York, Atlanta Georgia, Half the major cities in southwest US can have pretty bad ghettos and drug/gang problems, but that acounts for like 1/1000th of the US and 1% of the population.

It's hard to keep a lot of jobs in-house due to outsourcing, and our unemployment has been pretty high for some time, but every country has been facing that problem, so I'm not sure what his point is.
User avatar #55 to #50 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
What I gave was just examples, I was just trying to stress the need for ulterior methods of victory and crime-solving, rather than just trying to but-heads harder
User avatar #80 to #12 - habasparkz (06/11/2013) [-]
But I can't use martial arts to bear hunt.
#87 to #80 - infinitereaper (06/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, if you're a bitch
#86 to #80 - infinitereaper has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #82 to #80 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
That's true, but it's not so much what it does for you in a practical manner, so much as what it gives you (which is confidence, discipline, and perhaps even a certain good philosophy)
User avatar #89 to #82 - habasparkz (06/11/2013) [-]
Right I understand. It was just an attempt at being funny. But I see where your coming from. If everyone was well educated, the only people that would be "bad" would be the people that cannot control themselves. They should test the I.Q.s of inmates and see what the average would be. I'm very curious about this.
User avatar #94 to #89 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Haha, sorry. It's just hard to tell who's joking over text, and I would rather be taken as stoic than idiotic

But yes, most inmates due tend to score below average on an I.Q. test (than again, the smart ones don't get caught either)
User avatar #111 to #12 - rieskimo (06/11/2013) [-]
The fact of the matter is that USA is a land of opportunity. Everybody here is too busy trying to cover their own ass or trying to stab somebody else in the back that nobody in power actually pays attention to the end result of what they are voting for or against.

Apathy is a huge problem here, as much as my moronic compatriots like to scream and cry and wave their Cheeto-dust covered fingers above their heads and bellow out "MURICA" the fact is they don't love their country as much as they love themselves. We love ourselves here in America(I know hard to believe), we love ourselves a LOT. When a referendum or petition comes our way we don't care if it is a small step towards the reduction of the poverty rate or even if it means universal higher education, an American more often than not won't care about it if it takes even 2 cents out of our paycheck due to taxes.
Now this is a two part problem, part one Americans don't trust their government with money and part two America's government is a)terrible with money b)too secretive about the money GIVEN to them or c)all of the above.
This is not to say that Americans don't care about anybody but themselves. I can say with absolute confidence that we can be a very charitable bunch(as demonstrated by more people donating to any given world organization than there are people voting for government office). The problem is that we are afraid to change and we are surrounded by a million voices telling us that the other voice is a moron and why. We don't prioritize gaining knowledge nearly as high as we should. In fact many people are ditching the idea of attending higher education institutions all together. Higher education isn't becoming financially viable.
The people with real power(the general population) don't care enough about politics and the politicians are only listening to the highest bidder/their own companies.

This country is a mess, but we have a lot of potential. I just hope we come out on top.
User avatar #112 to #111 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Quite so. The problem is, nobody wants to take personal responsibility, but someone still has to do the crummy jobs. And so, what do we do? Do we let everyone sit in the muck and point fingers, or do we take it upon ourselves to adjust the short end of the stick? And if we choose the latter, where do we point it?
User avatar #114 to #112 - rieskimo (06/11/2013) [-]
We need a good strong leader with a lot of House and Congressional support, or strong enough popular support to override those bunch of outdated self-absorbed ******* assholes.

We need a leader that will sit down in front of everybody and say
"Look, we are in an ugly place. We have nobody else to blame but ourselves. We need to hold our chin high; because even though we are hurting we are one of the strongest countries on this earth. We need to invest in ourselves and our future and the only way to do that is through progressive educational and medical plans. These aren't to take away from what you have and the government has been the point of some serious discontent in the spending area but we must all focus our collective energies into picking ourselves up off the ropes or else doom ourselves to fall."

And then ACTUALLY do that, we need to get businesses the **** out of our government because the reason the FDA is essentially impotent is because of so much private interest as well as the reason half the crazy earmarked bills get passed. We need to organize government spending and we need to stop letting so much money get bled into this dark zone in the DOD. We need to stop trying to be some sort of caped crusader and start looking inside our borders. But we haven't and we won't, not until it is either too late or almost too late.
User avatar #121 to #114 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Haha, so why not become a politician yourself? Change your country from the inside out
User avatar #123 to #121 - rieskimo (06/11/2013) [-]
Because I know better, also I'm far too honest to be a politician.
User avatar #124 to #123 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Bah, and it's that kind of attitude that changes nothing. Are you sure it's because you 'know better'? Are you sure it isn't because you are frightened?
User avatar #127 to #124 - rieskimo (06/11/2013) [-]
No it's because I know I'm personally not influential enough. I also know that I'm not strong willed enough, I know that I will crumble to that big dollar sign. I know that I am bullheaded and won't listen to reason if I have been offended. I know myself and the environment of politics too well to know that although my ideals may be in the right place , I personally have no right being in a seat of power.
User avatar #129 to #127 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Hmm, fair enough, and good for you for being so self-understanding, it's one of the best traits to have
User avatar #131 to #129 - rieskimo (06/11/2013) [-]
To know yourself is the only way to better yourself.
User avatar #158 to #129 - undeadwill (06/11/2013) [-]
I'd do it. But I'm not a likeable person.
User avatar #216 to #158 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
I like you
#16 to #12 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
I actually hear about the war on poverty a lot. Never heard of the war on ignorance though. Probably don't really need to say this since it is implied, but yes I am American.
#168 to #16 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
i always assumed war on ignorance was called "education" but maybe not so in the usa system
#84 to #12 - infinitereaper (06/11/2013) [-]
Dude, you're breaking the rules, don't talk common sense or truth.   
This is humanity we're talking about.
Dude, you're breaking the rules, don't talk common sense or truth.

This is humanity we're talking about.
#170 - nseine (06/11/2013) [-]
Ammunition is tightly regulated, eh?
User avatar #164 - thehans (06/11/2013) [-]
and thats the way it should be. i dont care to own 100,000 rounds of ammo as long as i can hold a few mags in case of a home invasion and you can get as much as you want at the shooting range.
Swizerland does it ******* right
#113 - FightClub (06/11/2013) [-]
you people are focusing on the wrong ******* things here
#30 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
In my quick search absolutely nothing came up in regards to limits on 'private' non military ammunition or Government inspection of rounds. This fool did not do any research either. He is the worst kind of ignorant **** . He jumped to his own conclusions to justify his counter argument and the worst part is he said it confidently so the rest of the idiots, funnyjunk not excluded apparently, believe him without question. Educate yourselves bitches
" The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military — but not private — ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes. The debate culminated in a nationwide referendum last year, when 56% of voters rejected the proposal initiated by anti-gun organizations to ban army rifles from homes altogether"

Read more: [url deleted]
#96 to #30 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
[url deleted]

You're welcome, moron.
User avatar #117 to #96 - sgc (06/11/2013) [-]
why thank you for the helpful link anon, it sure was much more helpful that the other anon's
#31 to #30 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
source: World. time. com
User avatar #58 to #30 - wisdombranch (06/11/2013) [-]
Thank you for your research, but no one is surprised. Thank you for backing your claims with a source.
#101 to #58 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
At least he tried, I was getting the same thing too. The only thing that resembles the facebook post was that a small portion of the militia needs to have at least 50 rounds on them at all times, otherwise they get in trouble with the law. There are no rules about private or personal ammunition.
#160 - furrylove ONLINE (06/11/2013) [-]
Obviously ammo isn't necessary, guns can also be deadly when used as hacky sacks.
Obviously ammo isn't necessary, guns can also be deadly when used as hacky sacks.
#165 to #160 - uistorlingme **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#144 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
North Dakota has 50% gun ownership and we have low crime too, same with Wyoming.
The only reason guns are considered a problem in the US is because big cities let gangs run rampant. 90% of gun crime in the US is gang related.
#162 to #144 - malifauxdeux (06/11/2013) [-]
How can you shoot your neighbor when he lives 4 miles away?
User avatar #163 to #144 - fredthemilkman (06/11/2013) [-]
North Dakota isn't a myth?
User avatar #34 - sharkinacan (06/11/2013) [-]
"Hitler never invaded Switzerland."
Because the Swiss bankers don't really care whose gold they deal with.
#45 - anon (06/11/2013) [-]
Too bad its ******** , ammunition in Switzerland is somewhat hard to obtain, I won't lie, but most families with guns have ammunition in their home. Not all ammunition needs to be accounted for either, that'd be ridiculous. Not only that, but men who are in the militia are required to keep ammunition as well, at least a certain amount of rounds depending on the weapons they hold. Why the **** , might I ask, would we require you to keep a gun at home as a standing part of the military, but no ammunition?

Swissfag signing off.
User avatar #130 to #45 - thespecialone (06/11/2013) [-]
that's a question everyone asks himself when having the sig550 at home...

"What the **** am i supposed to do with that?"
User avatar #74 - sashathefolx (06/11/2013) [-]
Everyone else is going on about gun laws and ****

but I just can't get over how clever that mother ******* name is.
User avatar #97 to #74 - thesovereigngrave (06/11/2013) [-]
Holy **** that is glorious. I didn't even notice it, have a thumb.
#61 - MasterManiac (06/11/2013) [-]
Even though he is right in terms of the details, it still doesn't change the fact that 1 in 2 citizens have a gun and that it has the lowest crime rate in the world. The two may be completely unrelated, but the statistics remain the same.
Even though he is right in terms of the details, it still doesn't change the fact that 1 in 2 citizens have a gun and that it has the lowest crime rate in the world. The two may be completely unrelated, but the statistics remain the same.
User avatar #143 to #61 - pwoneill (06/11/2013) [-]
that is argueably the silliest argument Ive ever heard.

That is heavily reliant on an assumed correlation.
TO take statistics at face value without consideration as to why they work, makes them meaningless

Cattle death in india increases in india during the summer months, Ice cream consumption increases during the summer months.
That does not mean eating ice cream causes cows to die...

Leave a comment
 Friends (0)