Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #308 - SognaVetr ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
Question to those wo are against gun laws in the US: I can understand that you want to carry a firearm to protect yourself and/or your family. But why does any citizen need an assault rifle meant for warfare and massive killing? Why can anyone be opposed against forbidding the assault rifles?
User avatar #341 to #308 - WHATTHEPISSTRAINE (01/06/2013) [-]
an AR 15 isnt an assult rifle, they are talking about banning whats called assult weapons, Semi auto weapons that looks like the real thing while Full auto weapons can still be legally traded and purchased through class III dealers and paying the class III taxes, Now a good example of how idiotic this law would be... a Bushmaster AR would have to have its pistol grip removed and plastics changed over to Wood to make it "less dangerous" thats like painting a stick of dynamite blue to make it seem less threatening.
User avatar #375 to #341 - SognaVetr ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about an AR 15 in particular. I'm just talking in general: If they banned all assault rifles and allowed only handguns for safety measures, I can't see how anyone can oppose to it.And also, if that really is the new law, than it's ******** than the current one.
User avatar #422 to #375 - WHATTHEPISSTRAINE (01/06/2013) [-]
Well simple fact is sale of new Assult rifles (FULL AUTO RIFLES) and other machineguns is completely illegal. an AR 15 is not an assult rifle in any form, its a semi auto rifle, Like many hunting and almost all target rifles. An assult weapons ban only bans scary looking weapons regardless of function. and Believe me, most gun crimes in the US are based around pistols anyway, much easier to carry around and hide than a rifle.
#398 to #375 - wilhamlin (01/06/2013) [-]
I don't think you get his point. You seem to think that all rifles are assault rifles (brought on by your point "banned all assault rifles and allowed only handguns") which is not the case.

Assault rifles are rifles that have burst fire or fully automatic switches. These, although not 100% illegal, are difficult to obtain and very expensive to obtain a license for, so it is very unlikely that you see very many actual assault rifles unless you look for them.
#380 to #375 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
handguns for recreational hunting are less efficient and less satisfying
User avatar #325 to #308 - graydiggy (01/06/2013) [-]
Because an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Yes, it looks like one, but it is not.

An assault rifle will have, semi auto+3 round burst, 3 round burst or full auto alone.

An AR-15 is only semi auto unless the bolt is illegally modified. It is a cosmetically modified hunting rifle. It functions no different than say the Browning BAR autoloader. That weapon is a semi auto hunting rifle not to be confused with the BAR select-fire military weapon that served the US Army as the standard rifle squad light machine gun in the Second World War. They are completely different weapons. Just like the AR-15 and the M-4 are completely different.
User avatar #351 to #325 - paintbucket (01/06/2013) [-]
i would say modifying an AR-15 to fire full auto is difficult and takes a lot of skilled labor.
i know this because of reasons.
User avatar #316 to #308 - thenukecity (01/06/2013) [-]
In case the citizens have to form a militia to stop a corrupt and oppressive government.
#320 to #316 - SognaVetr ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
Because in the very inlikely case of a civil war a militia with some assault rifles will stand a chance against SWAT teams and Marines? I hope you're trolling.
Because in the very inlikely case of a civil war a militia with some assault rifles will stand a chance against SWAT teams and Marines? I hope you're trolling.
User avatar #531 to #320 - whaawhaa (01/07/2013) [-]
But when half the country owns guns 150,000,000 vs our total military force of 1-2 million I say civilians would do fine.
User avatar #654 to #531 - SognaVetr ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
You really think in case of a civil war the entire population would join a militia? If you are lucky, 5% will, the rest will run, hide, seek asylum etc. Not even speaking about the great number of people who would join the government's side out of pure fear.
User avatar #337 to #320 - thenukecity (01/06/2013) [-]
The point of the second amendment was just that. In case of something like this happening, the people can fight back. Of course at the time everyone had muskets so the odds were more even. You have to realize that the second amendment was made before the invention of fully automatic weapons.
User avatar #377 to #337 - SognaVetr ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
You are saying that the second amendment is outdated yourself and therefore needs to be updated. If It were me, id' change it to "every citizen has the right to carry a handgun for safety measures, and are oblied to take at least x hours of lessons in safety first". Seems reasonable to me.
User avatar #399 to #377 - thenukecity (01/06/2013) [-]
I'm not saying the second amendment is outdated. What I'm saying is that the odds were stacked more evenly back then. 2 guys holding muskets are equal. A civilian with an AR and a soldier with an AR aren't.
#314 to #308 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
It's America dude... They almost elected a mormon for president...
#323 to #314 - juiceboxaholic (01/06/2013) [-]
mormons are the worst. Can't drink, smoke, do drugs, get abortions, fly...
 Friends (0)