Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#214 - ipostcheesepizza
Reply +45
(12/29/2012) [-]
"Protects"
#473 to #214 - JoshBauer
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
That's kinda what a military does, you idiot. It's prevention by presence. If there wasn't a military, there would be nothing to stop a foreign military from invading. So yes, this kid is protecting everybody in the USA.
#522 to #473 - ipostcheesepizza
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
You really think your country is in danger at the moment? There's a fine line between prevention and exaggeration.
#560 to #522 - JoshBauer
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
No, we aren't in danger because we have a military. Did you just skip through my comment or what?
#568 to #560 - ipostcheesepizza
Reply -2
(12/30/2012) [-]
Even without the military, you're not in danger. There's no point in defending something that isn't being attacked. By defending, you're causing the danger.
#573 to #568 - JoshBauer
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
We're not being attacked because we're defending. Who knows where the world would be right now if the U.S. didn't have a military. We'd probably all be speaking German or Russian.
#208 - bananarchy
Reply +6
(12/29/2012) [-]
Sure Americans, keep thinking you're 'protecting your rights'
You sure are being protected from people living in huts and rags
#321 to #208 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
They flew planes into our building things, and I don't think they are quite as primitive and harmless as you think they are.
#215 to #208 - MacheteJoe
Reply +2
(12/29/2012) [-]
Is that what the internet tells you armchair warrior? I have been there and seen the smiling faces when we came to town. The only ones who don't want us there are the enemy and a bunch of pussies who sit behind a keyboard and judge.
#262 to #215 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
but we aren't protecting ourselves over there, we're protecting them. We are under almost no threat if every single US troop just got up and left.
#205 - boonfg **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#209 to #205 - MacheteJoe
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
If you weren't there then you don't know so shut your mouth. It's funny how the ignorant spew the most hate.
#255 to #209 - sovereignsunkown
Reply +5
(12/29/2012) [-]
quite honestly, the invasion of the middle east WAS illegal according to international law. not to mention the huge amount of civilian casualties. when america first invaded iraq, they specifically bombed SCHOOLS during operation medusa. there was a large amount of illegal actions against civilians during many of the wars in the middle east committed by everyone involved, although more so by america and britain than other groups.
#241 to #209 - denbaby
Reply +9
(12/29/2012) [-]
Well, I was watching a documentary about the man who spread a lot of information about  the U.S. government and what not through wiki leaks. Then there was this marine that came on to talk about this video in the documentary. What was going on was a gun ship opening fire on about 8 people, who were harmless civilians, just news reporters. Killing  all 8 of them, laughing as they did it. Then a bus came by to pick the bodies up, maybe a few of them. Then the gun ship began to open fire on the bus. When the marines got there they opened the bus and found a family (killed), and 2 kids who have been shot. One of the marines tried to evac the injured kids and his commanding officer said "Why are you worrying about the kids, secure the area." The men in the gunship said, "That's what happens when you bring your kids to a gun fight".  The man in the gunship said it in a humorous way. More insults were spewed out, by the marines about the kills they "accomplished". Now, after the Marine told this story he said that is was a normal occurrence for this to happen. Tells me quite a bit about the marines. The documentary was quite long. Mostly the "truth" of what goes on in the war.
Well, I was watching a documentary about the man who spread a lot of information about the U.S. government and what not through wiki leaks. Then there was this marine that came on to talk about this video in the documentary. What was going on was a gun ship opening fire on about 8 people, who were harmless civilians, just news reporters. Killing all 8 of them, laughing as they did it. Then a bus came by to pick the bodies up, maybe a few of them. Then the gun ship began to open fire on the bus. When the marines got there they opened the bus and found a family (killed), and 2 kids who have been shot. One of the marines tried to evac the injured kids and his commanding officer said "Why are you worrying about the kids, secure the area." The men in the gunship said, "That's what happens when you bring your kids to a gun fight". The man in the gunship said it in a humorous way. More insults were spewed out, by the marines about the kills they "accomplished". Now, after the Marine told this story he said that is was a normal occurrence for this to happen. Tells me quite a bit about the marines. The documentary was quite long. Mostly the "truth" of what goes on in the war.
#335 to #241 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
While that is illegal, and immoral, and I believe qualifies as murder, it is supposed to be reported. And, on our side, it can be reported and they can be tried for their crimes. Not so much with the enemy, which openly kill and mutilate civilians, which is probably met with praise from their leaders.
#249 to #241 - cullenatorguy
Reply +2
(12/29/2012) [-]
links? Sounds interesting.
#253 to #249 - denbaby
Reply +4
(12/29/2012) [-]
It's called "The War You Don't See" http:// topdocumentaryfilms. com/ war-you-dont-see/
#256 to #253 - cullenatorguy
Reply +3
(12/29/2012) [-]
Thanks!
#202 - suckmyrichard **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#199 - vegetatheprince
Reply +14
(12/29/2012) [-]
Yea, blame the guns. It's far easier than trying to fix the crazy people, and surely that'll stop all violence forever.
/sarcasm
#323 to #199 - joyguy ONLINE
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
YES.
#267 to #199 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Mental instability is genetic and uncontrollable. You can't stop people from being crazy, but you can make it hard for them to act on it.
#207 to #199 - habibijan
Reply +5
(12/29/2012) [-]
We have strict gun laws in Denmark. Only one school shooting, and that was in the 70's. No gun problem except with bikers and the few gangs, and hardly any murders a year - I think this year we only had 25 murders. Even if we superimpose this onto just one state, Denmark'd still come out in top.
Gun legislation stops killing, don't fool yourself. Not all, and not all violence, but it would help, if you weren't too blind.
#484 to #207 - JoshBauer
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
And how many people live in Denmark? Not 300 million? That explains it.
#629 to #484 - habibijan
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
As I said, even if we compare with the smallest american state, we'd come out in top. But I guess it's easier not to read my comment...
#270 to #207 - swagbot
Reply +2
(12/29/2012) [-]
God bless Denmark, but you are totally wrong about the *laws* being what prevents violence - Denmark just has a peaceful population - a culture of not shooting/killing people. *That* is why you guys have low crime rates, not b/c of your 'laws'.

I know this is...alarming... to say, but in the U.S., we just have a much more violent population, and a sick culture that perpetuates violence. We need to fix our culture, not create more freaking laws.
#254 to #207 - CakeOrDeath
Reply +2
(12/29/2012) [-]
Except in Denmark you don't have massive gang/cartel problems like we experience in the states. If you you take away everyone's gun, the citizens end up un-armed, while dealers and gangsters get more weapons illegally. Boom, now you have an entire criminal population armed to the teeth, and the rest of us sitting around like, "****"
#216 to #207 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
switzerland practically hands guns out to its citizens and they have low crime rates too.
gun control only marginally solves the problem, and can be completely useless where criminals can get weapons cheaply and easily via the black market.
#273 to #216 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
also implying black market guns make up for even a tenth of gun related crime.
#271 to #216 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
You're ******* retarded. The only people in Switzerland who are allowed to have guns are active military members who are allowed exactly one service rifle and no ammunition. The guns are annually inspected and you go to jail if it has been fired unauthorized. Most people there don't even want their gun, they just keep it in pieces in a lockbox.
#219 to #216 - habibijan
Reply +2
(12/29/2012) [-]
Fair enough, but wouldn't it be worth a try? It still is a statistic worth mentioning
#226 to #219 - itsdonealredy
Reply +4
(12/29/2012) [-]
you are right my freind, but what op points out is that its not guns so much as the people who are the issue, americans just like to kill eachother
we have more of every type of crime than in any other country
#257 to #226 - sovereignsunkown
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
i wouldn't say like to kill each other, but americans are taught to distrust and fear others from a young age. this leads to a heavily prevalent "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality, as far as i've been able to observe on my rare excursions south of the border.
#196 - Endofzeeworld
Reply -1
(12/29/2012) [-]
#288 to #196 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
i dont know b does seem like the right answer
#206 to #196 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
except:
1) you forgot a comma, it's really "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". not that it makes a huge difference.
2) that last part seems to be the key phrase every gun hater forgets about. stating expressly that the government shall make no laws infringe upon a citizens right to keep a fire arm and to use said fire arm.
3) theaveragejoe's post
4) the problem isn't psychopaths have easy access to guns, the problem is that there are more psychopaths.
#277 to #206 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
to keep and use in event of the military occupying peoples' homes*
#258 to #206 - sovereignsunkown
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
does the american Constitution have a within reasonable limits clause?
we have that in Canada, and i feel like it really should be in any consititution.
i mean, think about it; "shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, within reasonable limits" makes a hell of a lot more sense. the way it's phrased there seems to imply i could call second amendment to keep a pulse weapon, railgun, or nuclear missile in my backyard.
#225 to #206 - Endofzeeworld
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
Didn't make this comic, sorry for the grammatical errors.
#200 to #196 - theaveragejoe
Reply +4
(12/29/2012) [-]
A militia is not a organized system of soldiers by government. It is a group of armed civilians where it is not their actual job to be a fighter. Think about it, when this was written we had just won our independence from Britain with our armed civilians fighting. We wanted to insure that if the government ever tried to abuse our rights that we would have the ability to fight them physicaly if we ever needed to. On the assualt rifle topic, it keeps the government in check, them knowing that we have the same weapons that they do, and have the ability to fight if we would need to.
#229 to #200 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
A militia actually is organized by the state or local governments nowadays, and that actually works.
#236 to #229 - theaveragejoe
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Noun

1. A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2. A military force that engages in rebel activities.
#233 to #229 - theaveragejoe
Reply -3
(12/29/2012) [-]
no, a militia is a group of people that are not paid to be soldiers.
#235 to #233 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh]
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
#237 to #235 - theaveragejoe
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Noun

A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities.
#263 to #237 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Obviously it can mean either.
#190 - comradewinter
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
Soldiers - Trained. Get verbally abused if breaking safety rules. Taught how to use a gun by professionals who have been using guns for decades.

Citizens - Most likely not trained. Have a gun for the heck of it and rarely use them for anything but showing off. Taught how to use a gun by CoD.

You can control a soldier with a gun, you can't control the entire American youth. With school shootings being a problem you can imagine why. Good luck starting a massacre in Afghanistan where people expect to see bullets flying.
#210 to #190 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
I have no formal combat training but in ownership of a hunter safety license. I use gun when I want to have a couple weeks' supply of some delicious, fresh deer. I was taught how to use a gun by my Father, who comes from several generations of hunters.

I would also never kill another human being unless they immediately threaten my life or lives of other innocent people.
#264 to #210 - sovereignsunkown
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
there is a big difference between owning a gun for the express purpose of hunting and owning a gun for "Self defense".
there should be no restrictions on owning a long-gun, so long as it's registered, and you've passed a psych evaluation to make sure you're mentally stable.
to me, the problems arise when people want to own fully automatic weapons, semi automatic weapons, easily concealable handguns, ect. there's no practical purpose to owning a weapon of that sort, unless you intend to kill other humans. or maybe hunt an apatosaurus or something
#194 to #190 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
You really can't control a soldier either. There has been many cases of soldiers snapping and shooting innocent people like Charles Whitman who was a trained marine and used his skills to kill 14 people from the Observation deck of a University of Texas building. It just has to do with the person themselves.
#184 - thatonetyler
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
he only says something about 19 year olds, what about the 17/18 year olds that join up, should we charge our enemy with sticks, and stones?
#177 - seenaman
Reply +3
(12/29/2012) [-]
**seenaman rolls 33** Because police does nothing in NYC.. Somebody needs to check up on some politics. OP is a fag and has never heard of Giuliani. Dubs btw
#176 - Awesomecarrot
Reply +15
(12/29/2012) [-]
Guns in the armed forces =/= guns in public
#223 to #176 - pedobearson
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
They are completely different but should both be allowed.
#174 - gammajk
Reply +8
(12/29/2012) [-]
Because invading third world countries and slaughtering innocent civilians is protecting his "rich pansy ass"
#274 to #174 - defender
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
what country do you come from
#281 to #274 - gammajk
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Canada. Why?
#298 to #281 - defender
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Why you ask because Canada was part of the ISAF in Afghanistan and since being part of the british empire at one point pretty sure they took part in invading other countries for conquest
#312 to #298 - gammajk
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
I know. What's your point? I never said my country was innocent. We've fought alongside the US and the British in most major conflicts since the 1800s.
#394 to #312 - defender
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Most people tend to forget their countries history and bash another for the same thing good to know you are not one of those idiots
#165 - darthblam
Reply +13
(12/29/2012) [-]
Hahaha davidavidson is a faggot. He blocks me and deletes my comments on his conspiracy theorist ******** content because he's afraid of being wrong.
funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4330454/Honesty+Police/
Here's the post. This guy is horrible delusional and a complete hypocrite. It's just sad now.

Just putting this here because politics.
#637 to #165 - anon
Reply 0
(05/07/2013) [-]
He's a complete faggot , he blocked me ages ago for commenting on one of his posts and I wasn't even mean about it ! All I can do now is thumb down his ****** posts and comments .
#168 to #165 - arandomanon
Reply +6
(12/29/2012) [-]
Why should we care?
#171 to #168 - darthblam
Reply +8
(12/29/2012) [-]
Never said you should. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
#166 to #165 - davidavidson
-7
has deleted their comment [-]
#154 - achselschweiss
Reply +38
(12/29/2012) [-]
There's a difference between a 18-19 year old who has been drilling muzzle and trigger control for months, memorized the gun safety rules, had firearm training by professionals in a safe environment, and a 18-19 year old whose firearm training comes from Call of Duty and hip-hop videos.
#294 to #154 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
you Americans just don't get it do you? it's not about training someone how to handle a gun or protecting yourselves with guns, it's about people turning aggressive or desperate for a random reason, searching for a way to express it and if there are guns nearby, why not use it? So simply take the guns away and it will be much harder too kill someone. The violence won't drop probably but the death rate will.
#450 to #294 - achselschweiss
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
>implying I'm American
I'm from northern Europe. Less than five gun related murders this year, yet there's over 30 guns per 100 people here. USA has 88 per 100. Other countries with loads of guns and few gun related homicides include Finland, Switzerland, Austria.

The point is that it's important to teach gun safety if you're gonna have guns, whether it's by compulsory military service or firearm safety classes.
#246 to #154 - newfalcon
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
Exactly we need a proper way to teach gun use and safety! I took a hunters safety course when I was 12 and I learned about gun safety and proper firearm usage in the boy scouts. If We had prerequisites like this in the US we would probably have less gun related violence. Probably won't happen though. It would require Democrats to accept that guns are not godless killing machines, and Republicans to think of a better statement than "YUR ANI'T GUNNA TAKE MA GUNS!! DIRTY LIBERAL SOCIALIST!!"
#510 to #246 - achselschweiss
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
I'm European, and as you may already know, it's difficult to get a hold of a firearm in most of the European countries. But we still have a lot of guns: between 30 and 50% own a firearm.

Even though there's many guns, there's relatively few homicides involving guns compared to the US (some facts here: http://www.gunpolicy.org). I picked a handful of European countries at random and gun homicide per 100 000 people in all of them are less than 0.5. USA is around 3.0. You don't have to have a degree in something to see the issue here.

To gain the privilege to own a gun over here, you have to jump through some hoops.
In my country, you either
A: have to be a member of a sports shooting club for some time before applying for a gun owners license
B: take a hunters class which involves multiple courses (which contains wildlife identification and safety, among other things) and a target shooting test before getting a hunters license. After all that you can apply for a gun owner license and buy a gun.
Or C: be in the national guard, where you are assigned a rifle which you can't really use unless the country is being invaded or there's an exercise. No backyard shooting or killing animals allowed.
Also, you have to have an approved locker that's bolted to the floor.

Some people are just sick, and would kill regardless of gun regulations, but by making the people take a mandatory safety class, much can be solved. But one of the problems is that the US constitution is so strong that any legislation or law being passed would be considered infringement. It's sad, because making a few tiny hoops doesn't necessarily infringe on the peoples" right to bear arms" as it's called.


Personally, I've done my compulsory military service and have extensive training with guns and the safety surrounding them, but I don't own a gun. I'm thinking of taking up shooting as a hobby, but owning a gun for protection doesn't really cross my mind at all.
#636 to #510 - JuliusC
Reply 0
(01/16/2013) [-]
the real question is how many blacks and mexicans do you have in your country. They commit 67% of all crime here in the US (yes this is a statistical fact)
#231 to #154 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
I believe the point is that he was judging all 19 year olds.
#228 to #154 - pedobearson
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
They may be different but should still be allowed.
#152 - infinitereaper
Reply +2
(12/29/2012) [-]
I like guns, I don't want them banned. It won't solve anything. Human beings need to improve society. What happens to crime rates when a country achieves a golden age? What happens when the economy is booming, jobs are plentiful, and families are functional?   
   
Idealistic? No. Just not ******* retarded.
I like guns, I don't want them banned. It won't solve anything. Human beings need to improve society. What happens to crime rates when a country achieves a golden age? What happens when the economy is booming, jobs are plentiful, and families are functional?

Idealistic? No. Just not ******* retarded.
#147 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
he had to speak politically correct, but he actually meant 19 year old *******
#145 - awesomenessdefined
Reply +7
(12/29/2012) [-]
Don't show me a sword and tell me it's a shield.
#230 to #145 - pedobearson
Reply -1
(12/29/2012) [-]
It can be both.
#161 to #145 - rhiaanor
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
You can parry with a sword and stab/cut/beat the **** out of people with a shield.
#164 to #161 - awesomenessdefined
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
Yes, and then the shield becomes a weapon.
Sword and shield are just metaphors here.
#182 to #164 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Deterants.... Like countries today with nukes and large standing forces. The idea is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." In the manner that just because you have said 'big stick' doesnt mean that everyone/you are going to use it.
#146 to #145 - johnshepherd
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
I'm not, I'm saying you can cut off the hand of the dude that wants to gut you.
#149 to #146 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
That was a reference to Iron Man 2. Justin Hammer.
#151 to #149 - johnshepherd
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
And I responded to it.
#153 to #151 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
Fine, if you wanna go there.
Cutting off his hand makes it a weapon, not a shield.
#155 to #153 - johnshepherd
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
But the purpose of protection, or to be more exact, minimizing harm, is still the same.

Didn't mean to come across as confrontational, by the way, but I really hate when people argue things like "gunz can onlys be used 2 destroi!"
#156 to #155 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
I am on the side of Science. We don't don't make opinions, only facts.
#157 to #156 - johnshepherd
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
Is that another quote?

Also, do you want to debate gun-control? I'm game for it if you are.
#158 to #157 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
That was also a quote. Hank Green. Scishow News.
#159 to #158 - johnshepherd
Reply -1
(12/29/2012) [-]
It's an interesting quote. May I ask what the context was?
#160 to #159 - awesomenessdefined
Reply -2
(12/29/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFfWYYCfCZI
I might have been paraphrasing.
#163 to #160 - johnshepherd
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
He looks like an interesting youtube blogger. Thanks for mentioning him. Also, you should probably avoid those sorts of statements "I am on the side of science. We don't make opinions, only facts." since it comes across as an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Just a debate tip.

Happy New Year.
#143 - Muppetz
Reply +11
(12/29/2012) [-]
Love how I can be responsible for assault rifles, drive tanks, operate 7 tons, fire rockets, call in airstrikes,

...but am still not allowed to buy a beer stateside.
#187 to #143 - anon
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
Alcohol is horrible for you when you're young. Enjoy an underdeveloped brain if you drink often before you're 21.
#141 - breadbasket
Reply -4
(12/29/2012) [-]
Our military isn't protecting us from anything, right now.
However, the 19 year olds in the US military are trained to use their guns, so this doesn't even apply.
#148 to #141 - johnshepherd
Reply +1
(12/29/2012) [-]
Everyone needs to be trained to use guns if they want a permit. It's federal and usually state law.
#144 to #141 - Biebz
Reply +3
(12/29/2012) [-]
... Yes they are. Just because we are not in a conflict right now, their mere presence protects us from being targeted by other powers.
#613 to #144 - breadbasket
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
No, their presence only -provokes- conflict, you dolt.
#617 to #613 - Biebz
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Yes, if only we were all as smart as you and just laid down our weapons. Too bad that will never happen. Keep dreaming hippie.
#140 - foxtrotalpha
Reply -3
(12/29/2012) [-]
Did Bloomberg become a billionaire by becoming mayor of New York? Cause it would seem like it if you became mayor of a city that handles 1.5 trillion dollars a year.
#136 - loomiss
Reply +3
(12/29/2012) [-]
Okay I have an actual question, if we were to outlaw all assault weapons what is classified as an assault weapon?
My uncle says he would be able to do just as much damage to a school of children with his deer hunting rifle as someone with a semi auto ar-15. So should all guns be banned then or IDK I just want some peoples opinions.
#191 to #136 - foelkera
Reply 0
(12/29/2012) [-]
It's not going to outlaw assault weapons, it's going to outlaw scary looking black weapons. The 1994 ban outlawed AR-type rifles, however, guns with wooden stocks such as the ruger mini-14, which operated almost exactly the same as an AR-15, was not banned.
#142 to #136 - heartlessrobot
Reply +3
(12/29/2012) [-]
They want to ban guns that look like weapons used by the military.
#137 to #136 - narwhalsnballs [OP] **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]