That's not a gif. That's a jpg.

I was really hoping no one would notice that. so here gif unrealted.

your welcome

All conservatives please note.... he said regulating guns not... break into your house at night, take your guns and rape your family. Though that's how you may view it...

Ugh. The primary reason for the second amendment was because they had seen how oppressive governments could be, and wanted to give citizens a way to protect their rights.

The second amendment wasn't protection against the British, it's for protection from the US government, should it ever become corrupt.

lets put it this way

one reason Stalin didn't want to invade the U.S. is the fact that although his army was bigger than ours, our population was bigger than his army

he feared that if he invaded, every man, woman and child would be on their door steps with everything from bb guns to rifles, every step of the way.

now although we don't have threats such as other countries invading, it's nice to keep a rifle in case of emergency

some feel the gun control is violating our second amendment rights, some just want their guns

like personally i love guns and hate control laws (especially in california 5-10 round mags and bullet butons) , but i mean everyone has their opinion,

and i can tell you how disappointed i was when i went in with my dad to buy my first rifle (a mosin nagant) and had to wait 10 days before we could get it, because then i didn't get to fire it for a month or so later because my dad had to work on the weekends between then

so really theres different situations why people hate control laws, but its all about how you feel personally.

I understand what you mean. The constitution was written in the 1700's (no?) and therefore the second amendment dates back to the time when weapons were essential to the frontier. That arguably seems to apply less to today's situation.

yeah, and you're correct there, but then again people still do try their best to apply stuff to today using the constitution
but yeah i know what you mean, and some of the less educated folks who don't understand the fact that it applied to that time, are the ones complaining about how it violates their 2nd amendment rights
afterall it did apply to a musket/ flint lock rifle, not necessarily a high powered assault rifle

but yeah i still hate most gun control laws, some are understandable, but some seem a bit excessive
but yeah like i said its all about personal opinion

Which state are you from? And what are the gun control laws there? I'm kind of out of the loop up here in Canada.

california and i'm not completely sure on ALL of the gun laws but the ones i know for sure are 10 round mags, cannot be fully automatic, (i believe most pistols/pistol calibers have to have 5 round mags) (at the range the other day, the 9mm rifle we fired had a 5 round mag) most "assault rifles" have to have a bullet button (if you need clarification what that is i'll explain) and there's a lot more, but i don't know them off the top of my head

Well in Canada, you have to take a course to get a license, you need a special permit for semi-automatics, there's magazine restrictions, and there's a 28 day waiting period/ background and security check. It's working okay for us.

yeah, i understand licenses and courses, that's a great idea and they need more of that here, i mean we have preventive measures, but it would be much better if we required people to take a safety course before owning a weapon

as far as semi auto's i dont know about special permits, because semi-auto's are a LOT of fun.

mag restrictions are understandable because if someones trying to shoot up a place then they're gonna have less rounds, but i personally feel it's a major inconvience when at the range, having to stop every 5 shots to reload to mag, which does become a pain in the ass

28 days seems a little excessive because a background and security check shouldn't take that long, unless of course they have a backup of people waiting for theirs, then it's understandable

but yeah i see where you're getting at

There's kind of a thing here. Anything government related takes a fucking eternity :P

As far as I know, there going to take away alot of guns from the american people. I think its any rifle that has over 10 rounds and can be converted to full auto.

Then get a nice remington bolt-action or something?

Yeah, but thats not the best for self defense. Its also nearly as fun to shoot as a AK.

Shotgun, then? Nothing will stop an intruder like a shotgun.

well think about it this way, intruder breaks into your house, you shoot a massive hole in him with a shotgun, you have a LOT of work cleaning that up afterwards

shoot him with a nice decent sized round 5.56 /.223 then there's less of a mess to clean up

No offense but that seems a little trivial when compared to the bigger picture.

haha, none taken, i'm just messing around, it's just something i thought about when you said that.

Cuz dis iz 'murica, and we 'muricans need our gunz if we wanna stop dem dirty mex-i-cans from robbing us and stealing our jobs.

Is what I hear whenever someone brings it up.

I know that all too well. Like, they speak of their right to bear arms and that they need them for self defense. But seriously, why?

I have no idea. I've never felt like I would be more safe if I had a gun.

So what's the problem with having to pass a few tests or getting a license, then? Or what's the problem with waiting a week after purchasing a rifle? Don't get me wrong, I love guns, but I don't see the problem with gun control.

..until i crawled up his anus and turned him into a coat

exactly he could have shot the guy and got out of there quickly. but hes too much of a pussy to shoot it which resulted in him getting beat with a chair. quite hilarious

hmm..quite

Humans by nature are not murderers. USA army did research after ww2 and they found out that about 80% of shots fired in front lines were not aimed to kill. Soldiers were just shooting around because they had to and it kept enemy away. After that research army gathered small ....well army, of psychologists to create training method to bypass this instinct.

Majority of people are extremely reluctant when it comes to taking someones life

I was talking about in Public scenarios when they are meaning to use the weapon as an advantage against everyone else to do whatever they want.
(Basically, anyone who thinks they can simply rob a bank, wave a gun to intimidate you, ect.)

I'm sure most people are more than willing to fire to save their life; Not for a few hundred dollars if it isn't necessary.

Also, #220 gives a valid point.

I'm extremely pro-gun, and I think that if every anti-gun person was like you, we'd actually be able to come to a compromise, instead of endlessly bickering back and fourth. You're alright, man.
Have a HoneyBooBoo gif :)