Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#194 - cartophlin
Reply +5
(01/04/2013) [-]
<<< reaction of the guy wielding the chair
<<< reaction of the guy wielding the chair
#188 - longnameislloonngg
Reply +5
(01/04/2013) [-]
if we place ******* with chairs in schools there wil obviously be fewer school shootings gif unrelated
#193 to #188 - brioshell **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#197 to #193 - longnameislloonngg
Reply +5
(01/04/2013) [-]
I was really hoping no one would notice that.  so here gif unrealted.
I was really hoping no one would notice that. so here gif unrealted.
#200 to #197 - brioshell **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#201 to #200 - longnameislloonngg
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
your welcome
#107 - danimer
Reply +5
(01/04/2013) [-]
**danimer rolled a random image posted in comment #141 at Perhaps.... ** Gunman's face when the chair first hits him
#76 - vade
Reply +5
(01/04/2013) [-]
I dont care if I get red thumbs but in the end help take more innocent lives than they save and the only real reason why guns were in the second amendment was because they were scared of a British invasion and america had no real army to fight so they had to completely rely on the people unlike now where the US basically has the number one army in the world guys lets be rational and logical
#85 to #76 - wyldek
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#269 - sirformidio
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
*****, I AINT GOT TIME FOR YOUR CRACKA ASS ********.
#207 - mrslippyfist
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
**mrslippyfist rolled a random image posted in comment #2380888 at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic ** wasnt this in a bookmakers in leeds in england? and everyone bellow is arguing about american laws
#172 - keggut **User deleted account**
-3
has deleted their comment [-]
#186 to #172 - thebritishguy
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
why would American civilians kill british troops?
#189 to #186 - keggut **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#229 to #189 - Zarke
Reply -1
(01/04/2013) [-]
A poorly thought out one.
#237 to #186 - anon
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
For the independence and for avoid paying tea taxes to the queen
#289 to #237 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/05/2013) [-]
#165 - swordwoman
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
Guy with a gun gets owned, by a guy with a chair.   
   
''......''
Guy with a gun gets owned, by a guy with a chair.

''......''
#132 - majorkilljoy
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
The real question is what is your policy on chair control? They can really hurt people.

Never bring a gun to a chair fight.
#108 - goodguydavid
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
**** gun control...
Somebody get rid of those ******* chairs.
#36 - thumblocked
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
I'm probably gonna get an onslaught of red thumbs for this, but I'm just wondering why people would be so upset about the government making it slightly more difficult to get guns. Could someone going through this first hand explain it to me?
#43 to #36 - brokendownpm
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#45 to #43 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
Then get a nice remington bolt-action or something?
#48 to #45 - brokendownpm
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, but thats not the best for self defense. Its also nearly as fun to shoot as a AK.
#55 to #48 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
Shotgun, then? Nothing will stop an intruder like a shotgun.
#58 to #55 - rockstarownage
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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
#59 to #58 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
No offense but that seems a little trivial when compared to the bigger picture.
#61 to #59 - rockstarownage
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
haha, none taken, i'm just messing around, it's just something i thought about when you said that.
#49 to #36 - rockstarownage
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#54 to #49 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#56 to #54 - rockstarownage
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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
#57 to #56 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#60 to #57 - rockstarownage
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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

#64 to #60 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#65 to #64 - rockstarownage
Reply -1
(01/04/2013) [-]
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
#66 to #65 - thumblocked
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
There's kind of a thing here. Anything government related takes a ******* eternity :P
#27 - wolvesbrickwall
Reply +4
(01/04/2013) [-]
Pass legislation for Chair Control immediately. They are too dangerous.
#8 - Cookiez
Reply +4
(01/03/2013) [-]
People don't kill people, chairs kill people.

Ban chairs now.
#249 - dafogman
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]
Maybe the gun wasn't loaded?
*Pic, somewhat related.
#258 to #249 - goodguygary
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
..until i crawled up his anus and turned him into a coat
#244 - xxyzx
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]
I like how the other guy kept playing that arcade game.
#167 - stunning
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]
if the guy actually shot the gun it would have been a whole different story. just because you have a gun doesnt mean you will use it, which is ******* stupid
#170 to #167 - NoobPlease ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
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
#241 to #170 - stunning
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
hmm..quite
#137 - Nameloc
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]
It all depends.   
   
In most cases if someone has a gun they most likely aren't willing to use it.   
For instance, during a robbery, the last thing they would want would be to kill someone. They just want the money and to leave.   
   
Now if it were a psychopath looking to gun down innocent people, that's a different story...   
   
Although what's shown above is a good representation of the mugger not wanting to kill. It isn't an intention of his. He's simply trying to pull a bluff. Which is why it was so easy for the unarmed man to eliminate the threat.   
   
Now if you're defending yourself, you better not be in the bluff state. You HAVE to be willing to use it. Whether it's to incapacitate the foe or kill out of self defense.
It all depends.

In most cases if someone has a gun they most likely aren't willing to use it.
For instance, during a robbery, the last thing they would want would be to kill someone. They just want the money and to leave.

Now if it were a psychopath looking to gun down innocent people, that's a different story...

Although what's shown above is a good representation of the mugger not wanting to kill. It isn't an intention of his. He's simply trying to pull a bluff. Which is why it was so easy for the unarmed man to eliminate the threat.

Now if you're defending yourself, you better not be in the bluff state. You HAVE to be willing to use it. Whether it's to incapacitate the foe or kill out of self defense.
#146 to #137 - anon
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
Lol I dont think you know many people who own a gun if you think that 2nd sentence is true.
#220 to #146 - serotonin
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
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
#228 to #146 - Nameloc
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
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.
#133 - nadastress
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
To be honest, I'm kinda split on this topic and for the following reasons, "bear" with me:

In countries like Sweden that have strict gun laws I see it as a good thing because most people don't own one and it would be idiotic to sell them and letting more people having them, with risk to sell guns to the wrong kinda person and rather seek out for the illegal guns (not so many) and confiscate them.

But in the situation like USA is in, where a huge amount of citizens already own a gun and the illegal ones are many as well. I see it more as a defensive strategy to own one. I know I would have one in the states, but not here in Sweden because it's not as necessary.

Well that's my two cents anyway...
#135 to #133 - anon
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
Heijsan,

Tuning in from Finland, and I fully agree with you. We sort of have the same thing goign on here, hunters being an exception. Otherwise it is very difficult to get a hundgun, and an automatic rifle is right out, thank goodness. However we are a freaking small country and most crazy people are registered somewhere, and all of the gun owners are known, and the USA is like 300,000,000 people, so all kinds of things can happen.
#140 to #133 - richardastley
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]
I feel like on an individual basis, it's incredibly advantageous to have a gun, but collectively, it would be better if only people who need guns (hunters and cops for example) had them. Of course, when it comes to a lot of pro-gun Americans (though not all of them), the self is far more important than the collective and nobody is willing to make sacrifices. I understand that too because some people actually fear for their lives.

It reminds me of the problem with pollution. It might be more convenient to just throw a piece of garbage on the ground (owning a gun), and it won't really have a huge effect. However, if everyone does it, it kind of becomes contagious and people collectively suffer. The difference between the situations is that gun presence can be part of a more immediate death.
#144 to #140 - warriortnt
Reply -2
(01/04/2013) [-]
You forgot criminals, hunters cops and criminals.
#152 to #144 - richardastley
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
I don't think policy would allow for criminals to have guns. That would happen illegally unless a cop, hunter, or whoever actually needs a gun becomes a criminal.
#87 - nrhv
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
funny how the pro-lifers picket hospitals but not gun shops
#221 to #87 - teoberry
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, but the purpose of abortion clinics is to abort babies. The purpose of gun shops is not to arm killers. It's to arm normal people who like shooting guns, or hunters who make a living off it.
#94 to #87 - poutinesalad
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]
Abortion has nothing to do with gun control.
#104 to #94 - Triskiller
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
If you're pro life, you better not be supporting any goddamn wars or the death penalty. 'Cause that isn't very pro life, now is it?
#105 to #104 - poutinesalad
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
Yes but they have seperate fights against them. You can agree with both movements with no harm or foul.
#106 to #105 - Triskiller
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
I think it's pretty hipocritical to say you are pro-life by being against abortion, but still supporting the death penalty, wars, and the right to bear arms. All those things are about taking lives. Just call yourself anti-abortion, 'cause that's what you are if you're like that.
#110 to #106 - poutinesalad
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
Nothing is black and white, and they are separate political movements. You can agree with guns but not abortion.

The black market will get criminals guns regardless of legality; so its a right to protect yourself.
(This belief doesn't conflict with abortion beliefs)

You can also believe in abortion but not guns.










#126 to #110 - icedmantwo
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
its also easier to get a gun illegally if every house you break into has one or more
in addition its very hard to argue or justify the possession of fully automatic guns, where at least with pistols you can argue defense and pump, bolt, lever action rifles and shotguns or semi automatic rifle you can argue for hunting
plus you should also be required to take gun safety courses and back round/mental health checks as well
#114 to #110 - Triskiller
Reply 0
(01/04/2013) [-]
That's true, I agree with that sentiment, but calling themselves pro-life is what I don't agree with; because they aren't pro-life, they are anti-abortion.

I don't agree with your sentiment about guns offering protection, but that's a whole other discussion I am not willing to partake in at this point.

Have a good day. ;)
#115 to #114 - poutinesalad
Reply +1
(01/04/2013) [-]
That's the P.C. name of the movement, you talk about pro-life/pro-choice you're talkin bout abortion
#33 - konamicode
Reply +3
(01/04/2013) [-]