Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #338 - therealslim ONLINE (12/29/2012) [-]
Or you could be raised right
I live in the country and I have been using guns since I can hold them
I dont point a gun at something I dont expect to kill
There are thousands more people who use them correctly but you would be letting them them take away guns from people who need them Because making say
pistols for instance
We make pistols illegal
Guess what heres a list of things that are also illegal
crack
meth
pot(most everywhere)
cocaine

And what I have never hear anyone say
" Boy making drugs illegal sure keeps them off the streets"

If they ban guns say the hand variety people who actually keep them in good order and use them responsibly will be the one's hurt


User avatar #357 to #338 - exarzero (12/29/2012) [-]
Very well put.
#334 - MacheteJoe (12/29/2012) [-]
Myself as a 19yo soldier many years ago
User avatar #351 to #334 - latinotornado (12/29/2012) [-]
You have my respect for serving, my friend
User avatar #333 - sonicg (12/29/2012) [-]
So am I the only one here that noticed the picture is a Navy SWCC Operator and not somebody on the Army?
#329 - kjpuffin (12/29/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B29v5QiTxa0&list=UUAQ7357VoOQZTeRGhMa4r-A&index=2   
   
I'm no expert on gun control, but I think this video makes quite a bit of sense in relation to the issue.    
   
Starts at 1:47.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B29v5QiTxa0&list=UUAQ7357VoOQZTeRGhMa4r-A&index=2

I'm no expert on gun control, but I think this video makes quite a bit of sense in relation to the issue.

Starts at 1:47.
User avatar #350 to #329 - exarzero (12/29/2012) [-]
That was a really ****** video with bad metaphors. Not to mention ******* offensive and incorrect statistics.

Why is everyone like sheep when someone edits well a video with unrelated metaphors?
User avatar #308 - mrgoodbunny (12/29/2012) [-]
I think he means untrained 19 year olds who havent gone through military training.
#327 to #308 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
Go to any Army basic training camp. You will find some of the worst people who have ever walked this earth. And there the ones protecting the country. I hear stories all the time of people who have been to Army Basic and noted that at the end of the eight weeks there were very few actually soldiers. There were alot of people who were getting high from huffing gun oil and engaging in other juvenile activities.

Vietnam proved that just because you went through Military Training doesn't mean your a changed man. Sometimes its quite the opposite.
#306 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
US army doesn't protect anything other than the interest of the oil companies
User avatar #320 to #306 - pebar (12/29/2012) [-]
You do know we have a **** ton of oil in the U.S., right?
#295 - swagbot (12/29/2012) [-]
**** ... i reread the Second Amendment, and it's poorly and ambiguously worded:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." .... by who? By Anyone? So we can own a nukes if we can afford them?

IMO, they should've said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by any act of Congress."

This would make it clear that....
- Right To Bear Arms (RTBA) is about 1) Protecting Self from petty criminals, 2) Protecting Society from tyrannical Gov't, 3) Protecting Country from foreign invaders.
It would also solve the Assault Weapon debate:
- Via the 10th Amendment, STATES could make any law they wanted to about banning weapons, thus solving the "what if people want Assault Weapons / tanks / jets / nukes?" argument and allowing each state to follow its destiny.
#299 to #295 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
the first one is not part of the purpose of the second amendment.
#317 to #299 - swagbot (12/29/2012) [-]
Details or STFU, anon.
User avatar #293 - Crusader (12/29/2012) [-]
I think he means CIVILIAN 19 year olds, since the ones in the military are trained their use.
#301 to #293 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
then when they hit twenty they're all fully trained, apparently. It's his age, not the fact that he is in the military apparently.
#287 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
would anybody like mayor Bloombergs SSN?
#297 to #287 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
Mayor Bloomberg's SSN: 234-65-5835

have fun
#302 to #297 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
nobody wanted it, nobody asked, and the information is pretty much worthless. Way to be a gigantic ****** .
#300 to #297 - insaneguy (12/29/2012) [-]
how do you get this stuff?
how do you get this stuff?
#266 - jakeattack (12/29/2012) [-]
true, but deaths by guns are caused by home accidents. now the problem is people are stupid, we can hope that older people are more responsible but that is not the case. im all for guns but the thing is too many people dont know proper safety. that guy in the picture was trained intensely to learn these kinds of things.
User avatar #269 to #266 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
gun safety courses should be mandatory. i don't understand why america is so opposed to learning proper firearm care and safety.
#280 to #269 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
Liberals believe if people know how to use a gun they will use it to shoot up a school.

liberals are ******* stupid.
#285 to #280 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
conservatives play the victim every opportunity they can and generalize people with as much hate as possible
#291 to #285 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
Speaking of generalizing
#304 to #291 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
That's the idea ********* d-luxe
User avatar #282 to #280 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
I'm a Liberal, i don't believe that. i also don't know a single liberal who believes that.
i'd like to see some evidence behind your claim, considering that the majority of america's governing population and voters are very far from liberal.
i also don't understand the claim that liberals are stupid, since liberal countries such as canada, denmark, sweden, norway and iceland have higher average IQs and educational standards than the US does.
#316 to #282 - swagbot (12/29/2012) [-]
mmmmmmmmmNO.

Those people (populations of Nordic Countries) have the ability to be 'liberal' because they have a culture that supports it - Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway (somewhat) Holland, New Zealand, Canada... the have a certain kind of person and a cultural & logistical momentum that provides them with comparatively un-corrupt governments.

That is to say, you can't really consider them pro-or-ant-big-gov't, because their government is under their control and doing things that the populace is comfortable with, regardless.

... and THAT is to point out that the only reason we have these debates in the U.S. is because we have portions of the populace who think government should be more involved in citizens' lives, and others who think the opposite, this only in a society where there are such divides are labels like 'liberal' or 'conservative' applicable.

One more thing...
We have the 10th Amendment for a reason:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So that each state can try out the socio-governmental system that they fancy, and leave the others alone. Abortion, gun control, racial segregation, censorship, employment law, welfare systems, environmental regulation.... these can all be debated and agreed upon in the separate states, so that each state can do what it wishes without bothering the others.

But everyone forgets the 10th Amendment.
User avatar #332 to #316 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
i'm not sure what you're trying to say here, it seems like you accidently mixed my 3 separate points together into one or something.
let me break down what i said so it;s easier to understand.
1) i haven't met a single liberal who thinks gun safety courses will lead to gun violence
2) it seems silly to say liberals are controlling anything, when liberals are not a "ruling majority" in america; there is open discourse. which is what you were saying, i believe.
3) i don't think it's fair to generalize liberals as stupid because most liberal countries have higher average IQs and higher standards of education than the united states
#352 to #332 - swagbot (12/29/2012) [-]
Sorry, i grabbed onto your third point and took it in a weird direction. I've gone back and reread this thread and it showed me something;

Your original opinion was this: gun safety courses should be mandatory.

Actually, I'm a ******** Constitutional libertarian.... and i agree with you! That is to say, in my home State, i would actually not be opposed to a mandatory, quality gun-safety course for each new gun owner. I may also devote some of my life effort to convincing other states to follow suit if i had time to in order to reduce gun violence/accidents.

The only applicable part of that other tangent i went off on is this: In the U.S., the Federal government is not supposed to dictate any kind of regulation over its citizens' ability to possess arms - it's purely a State issue.

So, to bring this full circle - If you and I don't disagree on the State vs Federal issue, then I'm perfectly okay with you being a Liberal - we will go about our way if we are in different States, and debate each-other if we disagree about issues in the same state. Also, thus i thumb down the stupid Anons for perpetuating the ridiculous "Republican vs. Democrat" faux-feud.
User avatar #360 to #352 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
and i'm actually Canadian, i've seen the mandatory safety course law do wonders for our crime rate, so i was suggesting it be implemented in the states. sorry for breaking this into two comments, but there's no edit function on comments
User avatar #358 to #352 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
why would i disagree with the way things are run in another country that works perfectly fine for them? to me, it does seem a little inconvenient to have so many little governments making different decisions on important subjects, but if it works for your country, why change it?
i wasn't saying the federal government should impose such a ruling, i was saying the government in charge of such lawmaking should implement it. i don't feel i'm educated enough on what is federal and what is state jurisdiction in the US to suggest something should be federally imposed
#354 to #352 - swagbot (12/29/2012) [-]
I'm gonna ignore the other points, because that are just conversational chaff from the Anon bitching's and being a ****** .
#275 to #269 - jakeattack (12/29/2012) [-]
they realy should. i doubt we would take them seriously, but living here im surrounded by idiots. its probably the same reason we wont switch to metric, we are stubborn. anything that sounds like taking our rights away we oppose. but the real things that take our rights away get slipped by.
User avatar #278 to #275 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
yeah, it's really quite weird, when you look at the mentality of it. as a canadian, i'm in a state of permanent facepalm watching american republicans accuse "liberals" and "socialists" of being dishonest and seeking to take away rights, and then those same right wingers fix elections, steal, commit fraud, and seek to take away the rights and freedoms of groups such as women, homosexuals, transgendered individuals, and restrict free speech and such.
#344 to #278 - jakeattack (12/29/2012) [-]
its discusting man, i have to see it go on every day, liberals vs conservitives, we are so focused on the other side we forget what we are truely here for, the country. and politicians are so corrupt they are swayed by big business. we realy cant get anything done
User avatar #311 to #278 - thelastamerican (12/29/2012) [-]
Don't be fooled. Both sides do it. It's disgusting.
User avatar #314 to #311 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
i KNOW that both sides do it, but it's much more prevalent on the right.
as they say, conservatives aren't in it to run countries, they're in it to win elections.
User avatar #315 to #314 - thelastamerican (12/29/2012) [-]
No, it's fairly even. Liberals do it just as much as conservatives, they just use different guises. For instance, the person who wrote the gun ban legislation carries a .38 concealed everywhere she goes. I feel that we're not going to agree on this point though.
User avatar #325 to #315 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
i more so meant in terms of election fraud, not taking away rights. sorry, i misinterpreted what you were saying.
i might be more than a little pissed about karl rove and his cronies teaching my current government how to fraudulently win elections and take away the rights of our citizens without causing controversy.
******* harper conservatives.
User avatar #619 to #325 - thelastamerican (12/30/2012) [-]
******* hyper anything. Honestly I think if we step back and look at the problem it's obvious that the two parties feed off of the distaste for the other. Liberals hate conservatives and vice verse. They gain votes, not by showing any good sense, but by inflaming the hatred between the parties. We are taught on a regular basis here in the US that anyone remotely different than you should be the object of your scorn. Anyone with more or less money than you is either lazy or lucky. Anyone with a different skin color than you is secretly deserved of either more or less than you depending on your own skin color and background.

Another thing that really irritates me about... Oh god, I sound like a whiny little bitch.

I'm going to continue anyways.

America is, but should not be the police force of the world. It is time we began looking upon ourselves and fixing things in our country instead of going to other countries and breaking their things. I think the US could learn a lot form the Swiss. And with that I'm going to end my little tirade.
#259 - crazyoljew (12/29/2012) [-]
I love this post
#276 to #259 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
AND I WANT A COLT 1911
AND I CANT HAVE ONE
U NO Y?
CUZ IM UNDER 21
I LIVE IN MICHIGAN
AND BOTH MY PARENTS ARE FELONS
User avatar #331 to #276 - sonicg (12/29/2012) [-]
Turn 21, move out, keep record clean. Buy sexy gun.
#326 to #276 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
michigan is a ****** up state...
User avatar #284 to #276 - dagold ONLINE (12/29/2012) [-]
you can still buy a shotgun or rifle. Just be happy, in illinois I had to register with the state in order to get a foid card for the shotgun I brought with me from detroit
#279 to #276 - crazyoljew (12/29/2012) [-]
M1911's are the 						*******					 best pistols ever made . . . ever
M1911's are the ******* best pistols ever made . . . ever
User avatar #283 to #279 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
thank you.
i believe this gun has strong roots in american history and that is why i picked it.
also it is reliable and has a large caliber.
because lets face it.
a 9mm takes 3 shots to the chest to subdue
and with a 1911 you pull the trigger, hear a bang, wait for the smoke to clear and the guy isnt even moving.
#307 to #283 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
"a 9mm takes 3 shots to the chest to subdue"

I think you've been playing too many video games.
User avatar #310 to #307 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
shooting 3 times is silly.
this is .45
#318 to #310 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
this is the only .45 im allowed to have
(a .45cc)
User avatar #286 to #283 - crazyoljew (12/29/2012) [-]
I completely agree, kind sir
User avatar #290 to #286 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
since the shooting (and everybody points fingers in this god damn country)
im probbly gonna hve to wait until im 35. lol
User avatar #292 to #290 - crazyoljew (12/29/2012) [-]
I doubt it. Gun regulation laws aren't going to move that much because of Connecticut. I almost bought myself a Mozin-Nagant a year ago. It was pretty wicked
User avatar #296 to #292 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
THATS GONNA BE MY SECOND GUN

GTFO
but its sad.
remember virginia tech?
the gun shops in virginia had great sales
now all over america people are ashamed to buy guns
there are just as many ******* in countries without guns.
User avatar #303 to #296 - crazyoljew (12/29/2012) [-]
You could always go to Texas. Not much regulation over there. Pretty sure there aren't that much regulations over here in Florida, either
User avatar #309 to #303 - mrfourtysevenman (12/29/2012) [-]
in california you can drive a motorcycle without needing a drivers license.
User avatar #319 to #309 - crazyoljew (12/29/2012) [-]
Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the friendly tip
+3
#252 - cerealisticbeing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+1
#250 - admiralamory **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #248 - scorpiom (12/29/2012) [-]
The graphics on this new Call of Duty game look amazing!
#243 - ShaunG (12/29/2012) [-]
19 year old army personnel
#289 to #243 - dagold ONLINE (12/29/2012) [-]
23 year old military personnel, I still don't trust some of the guys in my company who are older than me. Spraying bullets all over the field because they "Wanted to feel the automatic power" and "Played call of duty and had great accuracy"

People of all ages are scary as hell
User avatar #474 to #289 - JoshBauer (12/30/2012) [-]
Thanks for your service.
#244 to #243 - ShaunG (12/29/2012) [-]
19 year old hipster
User avatar #245 to #244 - ShaunG (12/29/2012) [-]
I'd trust ONE of them with a gun, and that's because they've had extensive training.
#272 to #245 - brassballsofsteel (12/29/2012) [-]
actually its not very extensive, they barely get range time
#260 to #245 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
because after 19 you get extensive training...
User avatar #483 to #260 - ShaunG (12/30/2012) [-]
More training than a civilian.

Though, I live in Australia, I'm not sure of American military training. I know in Australia that our troops, even the grunts, are extensively trained before being put into combat.
User avatar #240 - cullenatorguy (12/29/2012) [-]
It may do everyone good to watch these. I recommend the bottom link first.

funnyjunk.com/youtube/3883402/Most+honest+3%C2%BD+minutes+on+television/

www.youtube.com/watchv=HqRTL6WRDZI&list=LLY2XJdHpC0jr3uUwlExOW8w

Both are under 5 minutes.

#238 - pedobearson (12/29/2012) [-]
The only gun control law there should be relating to the purchasing of one is you can't be a convicted felon.
User avatar #265 to #238 - defender (12/29/2012) [-]
they already have that
#626 to #265 - pedobearson (12/30/2012) [-]
I think you misunderstood my comment.
#251 to #238 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
what about mandatory safety courses, to make sure you understand how to use and care for your weapon properly?
or a psychiatric evaluation to make sure you aren't mentally unstable?
both of those make a fair amount of sense, and are required in my country. we've got pretty low rates of gun crime as a result, outside of gang violence.
#313 to #251 - anonymous (12/29/2012) [-]
Cultural differences seem to play the largest role in gun crime rates, whereas gun laws seem to have a reverse correlation. Careful stating something as a fact when it's based on personal opinion.
User avatar #322 to #313 - sovereignsunkown (12/29/2012) [-]
well, realistically, if more people are trained how to properly use guns, and mentally unstable people have less access to guns, it's going to lower gun crime. that's just common sense and inferential logic.
#627 to #322 - pedobearson (12/30/2012) [-]
How would training help stop mentally unstable people from getting them? Do you think that they'd get so attached to their trainer that they'd just say "I'm insane."
User avatar #631 to #627 - sovereignsunkown (12/30/2012) [-]
that was two seperate points. if you'd read my previous comment, you'd have read something along the lines of "psych evaluations and training courses should be mandatory for gun owners".
so point 1 (proper training) refers to everyone, whereas point two (mentally unstable) relates to required psych evals
User avatar #234 - omfgitsstsix (12/29/2012) [-]
This is flawed. He forgets that those 19-year-olds with guns are trained and have gone through mental evaluations.
#221 - djpulse (12/29/2012) [-]
hmmmmm
hmmmmm
#218 - MacheteJoe (12/29/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
 Friends (0)