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

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Per page:
Order:
Latest users (3): dusters, marinassen, pebar, anonymous(9).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#17045 - lazybrainz (12/31/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#17138 to #17043 - stonecore ONLINE (12/31/2012) [-]
Mfw BOOM
User avatar #17091 to #17043 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
Holy shit, did he go super saiyan?
User avatar #17081 to #17043 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Did that one guy who ate all those children ever use a gun?

I am fairly sure he did not. Come to think of it, I forgot his name too.
User avatar #17042 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
If you want a gun to kill "bad guys" you're either misinformed or white trash.
User avatar #17068 to #17042 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Nobody wants to "kill bad guys", this isn't some vigilante comic strip;

People want to be able to protect themselves from others.
User avatar #17067 to #17042 - novabird (12/31/2012) [-]
remember this quote when you get a home invasion.
#17263 to #17067 - ichbinlecher (12/31/2012) [-]
Now popular in Australia where guns got banned.
User avatar #17279 to #17263 - novabird (12/31/2012) [-]
i heard about that, that really sucks.
#17062 to #17042 - paintbucket (12/31/2012) [-]
if you want to ban guns you are either misinformed or European.
#17143 to #17062 - anonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
Yes but 270 million Americans out of 300 million own guns... 270 Americans don't smoke weed because its illegal.
User avatar #17160 to #17143 - paintbucket (12/31/2012) [-]
i wager more people smoke weed than own guns.
#17056 to #17042 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
Thats a contradictory statement.
Thats a contradictory statement.
User avatar #17052 to #17042 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
You're right, knives are much more fun!
#17039 - fuckyouto (12/31/2012) [-]
"Anti-gun agenda - Didn't anyone notice how quick public officials were ready to talk to the media about antigun legislation ? Bloomberg publically called out Obama and Romney to do something about the lack of gun control in the US, excellent timing seeing as the UN has legislation on the table to ban small arms globally."

- You need to login to view this link
#17035 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
Wait, maybe banning guns is not that bad of an idea...this way, we can usher in the era of SWORDS!
User avatar #17051 to #17035 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Hasn't that era past once?
User avatar #17057 to #17051 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
We could revive that era!
User avatar #17122 to #17057 - KakashiHatake (12/31/2012) [-]
Lets do it, then martial arts training will finally pay off!
User avatar #17104 to #17057 - droysters (12/31/2012) [-]
Personally, I'd rather chop a dude in half with a FUCKING CLAYMORE!
Guns are for sissies.
#17123 to #17104 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
This is my knife I've been meaning to test drive.
#17118 to #17104 - zradel (12/31/2012) [-]
This is the new claymore. I bet it could chop someone in half...
User avatar #17028 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Would you rather live in fear of someone with a gun or someone with a knife?
User avatar #17071 to #17028 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
I don't fear anyone, I have a gun
User avatar #17083 to #17071 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
bullshit you would still be scared. and you're lying if you say you're not.
User avatar #17159 to #17083 - zradel (12/31/2012) [-]
You seem to be under the impression that fear would deny you the ability to operate. Actually it would stimulate the release of adrenaline helping you to operate more effectively...being scared isn't always a negative.
User avatar #17177 to #17159 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
And i didn't say it would be a negative i was just saying he would be scared.
User avatar #17155 to #17083 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
First, you should like a child. Secondly, once bullets start flying I believe I would be scared but I would also be able to defend myself and return fire. Also, I'd live in more fear if everyone has knives because I not only have to have more skill than the person with the knife, I also need to be physically stronger than the person with the knife. With a gun I can have distance and I have a better chance of stopping a person if I am accurate and smart.
User avatar #17164 to #17155 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Once bullets start firing you'll be dead before you can pull out your gun...
User avatar #17208 to #17164 - zradel (12/31/2012) [-]
You've obviously never fired a weapon in your life...you can't really comment on the complexities of gun ownership/responsibilities because you don't know them. I would be happy to have a calm talk/debate about gun control with you. Just tell me the time and medium of how we would communicate.
User avatar #17202 to #17164 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
Okay, well someone could come up behind me and slit my throat and it wouldn't matter if I had a knife and it wouldn't matter because I'd be dead.
User avatar #17209 to #17202 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
I see your point but the same goes for guns.
User avatar #17235 to #17209 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
Okay but in a scenario where I'm face to face with my attacker or my attacker breaks into my home, I'd rather have a gun where I'd stand a better chance because I don't have to worry about be stronger than my attacker.
User avatar #17251 to #17235 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Yeah i suppose.
User avatar #17318 to #17251 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
And in that scenario, I'd want a gun that makes sense for close quarters combat so I'd either have a handgun or a tactical semi-automatic rifle.
User avatar #17055 to #17028 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
I don't quite see where you're going with that question.
User avatar #17075 to #17055 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Would you rather some mad man had a gun or a knife?
User avatar #17110 to #17075 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Neither, I suppose. But what does that matter, are you saying gun control does not matter?
User avatar #17171 to #17110 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
No it's just i disagree with owning a gun
User avatar #17211 to #17171 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
What about hunting or sport shooting?
User avatar #17244 to #17211 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Maybe for hunting and sports but i think there should be an exam and mental health test before you can own one.
User avatar #17291 to #17244 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
What purpose would that serve? Even in countries that have strict gun laws, people don't have to go to such lengths to own guns. And a person buying a side-side shotgun, a muzzleloader rifle, or any sort of sport rifle, won't do much damage with it if they lost their marbles and went on a shooting spree.
User avatar #17300 to #17291 - sausydangles (12/31/2012) [-]
We don't require people to take a mental health test or an exam to buy bomb making materials and that would kill a lot more people than a gun.
#17048 to #17028 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
I wouldnt be as afraid as someone with a gun if I had one too....
I wouldnt be as afraid as someone with a gun if I had one too....
User avatar #17063 to #17048 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Complete bullshit. If they were pointing it at you, you wouldn't have time to respond whether it being with a gun or knife you would be dead before you could pull out your gun.
User avatar #17093 to #17063 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
If someone is breaking into my house (possibly with a gun) I will know because I have an alarm

but what good would the alarm do if he still has a gun and I dont
User avatar #17114 to #17093 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Why would they want to kill you in the first place?
User avatar #17136 to #17114 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
Because they want my stuff and I'm not going to allow it

or maybe they're just some crazed lunatic who wants to go on a killing spree.
User avatar #17153 to #17136 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Well if they are then you're fucked either way
User avatar #17185 to #17153 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
Right. you're saying they're impossible to shoot first?

They will open the door and an alarm will go off, and I'll wake up, grab myself a gun, and I'll shoot him. of course there's a possibility he could still get me first, but its not like he's superman
User avatar #17044 to #17028 - zradel (12/31/2012) [-]
Would you rather deal with a criminal that has an illegal weapon with a gun or a knife?
User avatar #17053 to #17044 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
The Illegal weapon being?
#17086 to #17053 - zradel (12/31/2012) [-]
<--- One of these
User avatar #17069 to #17053 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
A GUN
User avatar #17036 to #17028 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
I know how to handle both situations. I am fluently trained in over 8 types of hand to hand combat, and i learned how to dodge bullets from agent smith.
User avatar #17046 to #17036 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Yes, and I own a pet space-lizard named Terry.
User avatar #17059 to #17046 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
No you don't you fuken liar.
0
#17103 to #17059 - djequalizee has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17097 to #17059 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
yes i actually do he like strawberries a lot its really cute
User avatar #17107 to #17097 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
Well, i guess, if you say he's cute.
User avatar #17033 to #17028 - paintbucket (12/31/2012) [-]
i would rather have a gun too.
User avatar #17027 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
Now guys.. What if.. Just thinking out loud here.. But WHAT IF.. All guns came alive and enslaved humanity. Now I'M NOT SAYING it's going to happen. I'm just saying we should be prepared.
User avatar #17017 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
The real culprit behind these mass shootings are SSRI's. In nearly every mass shooting, the shooter/s were taking antidepressants. Antidepressants are known for increasing negative, suicidal and homicidal thoughts. I bet you didn't hear this on the news. Why you ask? Because SSRI's are a HUGE part of the pharmaceutical industry that makes billions upon billions of dollars.
If anything is to blame, it is SSRI's, not firearms.
#17038 to #17017 - majorcris (12/31/2012) [-]
Coming from somebody who takes Prozac; fuck no.
I dun like taking meds, but I've never had increased negative thoughts while taking them.
The people that shoot shit up are just psychos IMO.

Picture mother-fucking-related to your comment.
User avatar #17064 to #17038 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
You need them then. But many do not, they are handed out like candy. It is a fact that they increase the risk of suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Check this out, might explain it better than I can. www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE&list=LL43r-aqalx2LsRZ51VAeOXw
#17037 to #17017 - snakefire (12/31/2012) [-]
Right   
   
ban guns and people will want/get them anyways   
   
ban antidepressants and nobody cares, because 9 times outta ten people reluctantly take medication because the doctors encourage it so they can make money.   
   
Its a funny thing to think that socialized medicine could help stop shootings.
Right

ban guns and people will want/get them anyways

ban antidepressants and nobody cares, because 9 times outta ten people reluctantly take medication because the doctors encourage it so they can make money.

Its a funny thing to think that socialized medicine could help stop shootings.
User avatar #17030 to #17017 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
You and ninee should be best friends
User avatar #17026 to #17017 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
We should ban Capitalism?
User avatar #17020 to #17017 - jetrowillems (12/31/2012) [-]
right okay we'll ban people from becoming depressed
User avatar #17031 to #17020 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
America has fallen into the trap of trying to solve all problems with a pill. Instead of talking about and working through issues, psychiatrists prescribe anti depressants to function in daily life. Some people need them, many people do not. We take pills like candy.
User avatar #17061 to #17031 - jetrowillems (12/31/2012) [-]
i agree not all people are suited to pills, but a lot of people are, they do help so many people and its the minority that become psychotic murderers that ruin things for everyone.
I dont see how banning medicinal drugs could have a positive effect, when it would make thousands of peoples conditions worse.
User avatar #17094 to #17061 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
I never called for a ban of medicine. I simply said to blame SSRI's and not guns. At the end of the day, these massacres are rare and nothing should be taken from the public. We don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists do we?
0
#17474 to #17094 - abcdoremi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17562 to #17474 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
It is a good metaphor...and you shouldn't do that. Muslims are a peaceful people, like Christians. A few doesn't represent the many.
0
#17778 to #17562 - abcdoremi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #18720 to #17778 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
You've allowed the media to brainwash you into being uncomfortable.
0
#19293 to #18720 - abcdoremi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17016 - hadrian (12/31/2012) [-]
The only reason we should even be considering banning guns is if we no longer wish to be free citizens who are governed by our consent. The right to bear arms applies to all weapons (including paramilitary weapons) so that we can defend ourselves from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. If you support the ban of guns, you are declaring your desire to be ruled rather than governed by your consent.
#17073 to #17016 - ichbinlecher (12/31/2012) [-]
People seem to not understand what a militia is, thank you for pointing it out.
0
#17468 to #17073 - abcdoremi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#17482 to #17468 - ichbinlecher (12/31/2012) [-]
Actually the idea that you may be a member of a local militia and have actually been drilling could very well defend you. It would be like trying to invade an active military person's house. The very concept is deterrent.

But in general, no they would not. Home Invasion is primarily a risk when you don't even own a gun (or are banned from owning one).
0
#17772 to #17482 - abcdoremi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#17923 to #17772 - ichbinlecher (12/31/2012) [-]
I believe we are on the same page. I was simply stating the point of the second amendment being the establishment of a militia. Part of that is the freedom to bear arms, another part is to publicly execute drills and train in defense of your local. Both are necessary. The first for defense of self, the second for defense of community.
User avatar #17047 to #17016 - hadrian (12/31/2012) [-]
Also, if guns kill people...
then pencils misspell words and cars make you a drunk driver.
User avatar #17019 to #17016 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
You're thinking as rashly as the radicals on the other side of the spectrum.
User avatar #17024 to #17019 - hadrian (12/31/2012) [-]
I respectfully disagree.
User avatar #17040 to #17024 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
You're entitled to believe so.
User avatar #17015 - novabird (12/31/2012) [-]
the second amendment protects the rest, nuff said.
User avatar #16996 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
If you want to protect the children, don't pick on the law abiding citizens. Question how the psychos are getting to our children and solve the problem. Stop the psychos at the GATE. Don't let them in. If you want people to survive random massacres in public, arm the people. More legal, law abiding weapon holders, can protect other citizens from the psychos. If I would have been in the theater that night, armed. I would have killed Holmes without a second thought.
User avatar #17113 to #16996 - unworldlypath (12/31/2012) [-]
that is a valid point, one that is made ALL the time, but if the supply of weapons is eliminated outright, where a society has no firearms whatsoever, would these slaughters stop?

maybe, but even if obama bans guns,how the hell is he even going to begin to stop the supply of guns? he can't, no government on this earth could, the only way to stop these things without causing major butthurt would be to arm more people.

final point here, i see alot of people suggesting that the popuilace is to be armed, im sorry but thats stupid, at the most extreme level police or other authorities should be introduced to the public in a new way. keep them at public buildings, defend neighbourhoods, all that crap, but arming just ANYBODY to protect others is a major problem, how are they going to regulate everything? and what if one of these defenders goes of the hook and kills a bunch of people? the populace isn't going to like that idea one bit either.

in short obama is in deep shit if he can't find a way to satisfy everyone.
User avatar #17174 to #17113 - eight (12/31/2012) [-]
The idea of arming people is quite simple. The more people with weapons, the more people able to protect. Yes, likely more people will go looney, but more people will also be able to stop them mass killing. Not anybody should be armed. Everyone who wants to buy a weapon should learn how to operate it. Everyone who buys a weapon should be required to lock it up safe if living with children.
User avatar #16989 - SirJohnson (12/31/2012) [-]
no
User avatar #16983 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
Now, if he bans guns, then he has to figure out a way to get them.

I propose that giant magnetic planes fly all around america and pick them up.

Then drop them off at a big grinder to be made into a big statue of a gun.
User avatar #17009 to #16983 - zradel (12/31/2012) [-]
He can't take the ones already out there...there are too many on the market. They would be grandfathered into the bill and only new weapons would be affected.
User avatar #16995 to #16983 - jetrowillems (12/31/2012) [-]
yeah a huge magnet, fantastic for picking up other metal shit and causing havoc throughout the entire country
User avatar #17005 to #16995 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
At least we would get to keep a lot of our own magnets.
User avatar #17014 to #17005 - jetrowillems (12/31/2012) [-]
hey if you got a powerful enough magnet you could end up with some free planes?
User avatar #16993 to #16983 - paintbucket (12/31/2012) [-]
lets just remove that pesky right we have that says the police can't search our home without a warrant, while we're at it.
User avatar #16992 to #16983 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Then they could paint a big 'X' on it to show that guns are not favorable.
User avatar #16978 - Mixx (12/31/2012) [-]
A piece of gun control legislation is not going to stop a delinquent. Perhaps better and more affordable psychiatric care?
User avatar #17002 to #16978 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Perhaps.

I still don't think that everyone would get the help, though.

I think guns are the bigger picture; because everyone pays attention to those. The same could not be said about psychiatric health.
User avatar #17025 to #17002 - Mixx (12/31/2012) [-]
Exactly, mental disorders have a stigma attached to them, especially in today's society. Some people feel ashamed to seek help, or they're just in denial.
User avatar #17034 to #17025 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Mhm. I don't think this issue could ever be fixed simply.
User avatar #16976 - jetrowillems (12/31/2012) [-]
Banning guns will only have a tiny effect..
Madmen still gonna be madmen, like they care that they're breaking one more law than before...
Theres always going to be someone with a supply of guns, they're always going to be accessible.
User avatar #16962 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
We should ban sex:
No sex = no kids
No kids = no adults
No adults = No death
Thus we end up with the lowest death rate. But the Porn Industry will probably take a huge loss.
0
#17003 to #16962 - negativeone has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #16971 to #16962 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
We would need to build more jails, because lots of people would have sex anyway. So they would need to be jailed.

Jails cost money. America is in some bad debt.

We would need to have either a really good plan for enforcing that law or a better economy to have more money to make more jails.
User avatar #17006 to #16971 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
We wouldn't have to worry about Elementary education.
User avatar #17013 to #17006 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
You sure?
User avatar #17018 to #17013 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
Once we have few children, we wouldn't have much of a need for education.
User avatar #16968 to #16962 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
Or we can kill all the children.
User avatar #17008 to #16968 - negativeone (12/31/2012) [-]
Spike Peanut Butter with one compound and Jelly with another that will combine and cause an explosive reaction when introduced to saliva. Unless some have a weird fetish that makes them spit on PB&J sandwiches before they eat them...In that case, we can just shoot them.
User avatar #16954 - faithrider (12/31/2012) [-]
guess who stopped all of these armed gunman, a man with a gun. if we ban guns then who will stop the people who don't care about the law. nobody but the armed gunman with a gun, because only the people who don't care will have guns.
User avatar #16985 to #16954 - zeuez (12/31/2012) [-]
Usually they kill them self though.
User avatar #16998 to #16985 - faithrider (12/31/2012) [-]
with what i ask? with a gun (it doesn't matter, that is part of my point) they are an armed gunman. by killing themselves they have fulfilled my parameters for my statements
User avatar #16963 to #16954 - pandadiablo (12/31/2012) [-]
Forgetting police.

Also, statistically, the number of dangerous people with access to guns will decrease
#16991 to #16963 - faithrider (12/31/2012) [-]
no. the guy in connecticut wasn't allowed to have guns, they were his mom's. did he give a shit, no he blew her head off with her own pistol. Cops only have pistols and tazers. handguns. the ban is for assault type weapons. the only groups of police with any access to assault type weapons is thw SWAT. they take time to prepare. time that little children don't have, and on top of that if we banned assault type weapons then how would the SWAT get ahold of their weapons?
no. the guy in connecticut wasn't allowed to have guns, they were his mom's. did he give a shit, no he blew her head off with her own pistol. Cops only have pistols and tazers. handguns. the ban is for assault type weapons. the only groups of police with any access to assault type weapons is thw SWAT. they take time to prepare. time that little children don't have, and on top of that if we banned assault type weapons then how would the SWAT get ahold of their weapons?
User avatar #17021 to #16991 - majorcris (12/31/2012) [-]
Actually, after that bank of america robbery, im pretty sure that most squad cars have a shotgun or assault rifle in the trunk.
#17041 to #17021 - faithrider (12/31/2012) [-]
but the SWAT team is most trained to use them. you can't just pick up an assault type weapon and expect to be any sort of profficient with it.
but the SWAT team is most trained to use them. you can't just pick up an assault type weapon and expect to be any sort of profficient with it.
User avatar #17054 to #17041 - majorcris (12/31/2012) [-]
Well yeah, but its not like they're all, "Heres a fucking m16 so you can shoot people with body armor. Have Fun!"
Nah, they train 'em to use them.
SWAT team has tactics, and raid buildings.
User avatar #17078 to #17054 - faithrider (12/31/2012) [-]
*patrol cop
User avatar #17077 to #17054 - faithrider (12/31/2012) [-]
the police are not trained for proficiency in assault weapons because they are trained in handguns. only SWAT is trained for assault weapons. some cops may be trained as snipers but that is not the same and most of those are still part of SWAT, not the basic black and white cop
User avatar #16984 to #16963 - paintbucket (12/31/2012) [-]
average police response time is 15mins.
i'll keep my firearm thank you.
#16953 - anonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
no
User avatar #16948 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
I think Obama should eat his foot

that's political-ish, right?
User avatar #16950 to #16948 - paintbucket (12/31/2012) [-]
i would support this.
User avatar #16967 to #16950 - djequalizee (12/31/2012) [-]
I'd support anything
User avatar #16942 - gigglesthegreat (12/31/2012) [-]
Why are we talking about politics on a site meant for funny.. that's what I want to know.
User avatar #16964 to #16942 - mycatislookingatme (12/31/2012) [-]
Because we're on the poltics board, that's why.

If I were to start cracking some one liners, that would just be out of context.
User avatar #16973 to #16964 - gigglesthegreat (12/31/2012) [-]
appologies, I didn't know we had a politics board.
 Friends (0)