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

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#529 - pretzalman (01/18/2013) [-]
Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right
#541 to #529 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#587 to #541 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
shut up pussy
#602 to #587 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#519 - mitchimusk (01/18/2013) [-]
I thought this website was a majority liberals? Liberals are in favor of stricter gun laws....
#511 - moustachefingers (01/18/2013) [-]
>Walk into elementary school w/ duffel bag.
>Pull out 2 rapid fire nerf guns.
>Tag everyone in the school.

User avatar #525 to #511 - JMF (01/18/2013) [-]
>Get arrested
#507 - Soilwork has deleted their comment [-]
#523 to #507 - techketzer (01/18/2013) [-]
Dangerous half-knowledge.   
- The first amendment protects free speech, whereas it's the second that states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   
- The second amendment was not made with hunting or fending off burglars in mind, but aims to enable the citizenry to strike back against a tyrannical government.   
- Police, as an instrument of, enabled and controlled by the state, does not serve that purpose but would become a tool of oppression.   
- Assault rifles (= automatics) underlie strict and very expensive regulation, but are not illegal per se. The semi-automatic rifles you mean are not assault rifles by definition. Keep your terms accurate at all cost when dealing with laws.    
That's just the technical information you got wrong.
Dangerous half-knowledge.
- The first amendment protects free speech, whereas it's the second that states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- The second amendment was not made with hunting or fending off burglars in mind, but aims to enable the citizenry to strike back against a tyrannical government.
- Police, as an instrument of, enabled and controlled by the state, does not serve that purpose but would become a tool of oppression.
- Assault rifles (= automatics) underlie strict and very expensive regulation, but are not illegal per se. The semi-automatic rifles you mean are not assault rifles by definition. Keep your terms accurate at all cost when dealing with laws.

That's just the technical information you got wrong.
#546 to #523 - littlenish (01/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #558 to #546 - techketzer (01/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. *bows*
#468 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Think about it like this: if they ban guns, they have to ban knives, because knives can also kill. Then rope too, and bleach. And drugs, because they can all kill.

Why not sex, while their at it? It transmits diseases which can shorten lives.

Just think about it. No sex, no knives, no rope, no drugs. And no sharp corners. They can kill. We'll be living in circles.
User avatar #536 to #468 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
your logic is so out of place
#578 to #536 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
>your logic is out of place.

Not really


Have you ever heard of the slippery slope theory?
>Uk bans guns
>Less gun murders still has gun crime
>tens of thousands are now being stabbed to death.
>UK Bans knives

Ill keep my gun thank you
User avatar #734 to #578 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
then dont say stupid **** to make a point, guns were made to be killing machines, while sex is not, comparing the two makes him a dumb ass in my opinion, why do gun owners get all but clenched when the government wants to take away something that is not needed and highly dangerous
User avatar #740 to #734 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
You are literally too stupid to argue with. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

You say they are super dangerous but cant even comprehend how they even work. This limiting the second amendment ******** would be like the government censoring the internet because "The founding fathers had no idea the internet could exist so it doesn't apply to the 1st amendment"

I would gladly fight for your rights any given day of the week why will you not fight for mine, which technically is also yours.
User avatar #749 to #740 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
All right but was the internet invented as something intended to kill others? We only made guns to be killing machines it would be nice to know someone has even more difficulty to get their hands on a deadly weapon
User avatar #767 to #749 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
Most firearms were not intended to be used for combat the Ar-15 platform which the m16/m4 family comes from was originally invented for pest control before our military found out it was good for taking out targets at long ranges. The 300 Winchester magnum was originally made for competition shooters to use on long range targets then someone decide to snipe people with it.

Most of these psychos friends and family knew they were going to do this **** weeks before it happens but say NOTHING. these current new proposals will do nothing to curb the violence btw. Only 3% of gun crimes are commited with a long rifle. "Assault weapons" being a sub division. Did you know more people are killed by bolt action hunting rifles which are also long rifles then assault weapons.

Colombine and the west Hollywood shootout were during the Clinton AWB as well which is the same one we are trying to pass again as well.

The west hollywood shoot out two men had body armor and SELECTIVE FIRE AK47s
Which body armor was banded in the AWB and the weapons were banned long before the in 1986. Criminals do not follow rules.
User avatar #775 to #767 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
all right then, but why do we need rifles or should i put out guns in general with extended magazines? And honestly i don't care either way but personally i want to see some sort of mental health reform than gun reform, bc gun discussions just make people to angry and personal, i have yet to see some one get angry over a mentally disabled person and them getting treatment
User avatar #776 to #775 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
They have a right to be angry like is said its called the BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A REASON

The 1st and the 2nd

They are rights not given to you by the government, but BY GOD even if you don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters they are something bigger then the government.
User avatar #778 to #776 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
please tell me you went to the whole rights given by god....
User avatar #639 to #578 - sketchE (01/18/2013) [-]
the slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy
User avatar #653 to #639 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
Keep believing that.
The UK is proof

>Ban guns
> Ban sharp Objects
> Ban Kitchen knives

That's 3 ******* down lets see how bad it gets from here.
User avatar #737 to #653 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
it is a logical fallicy
User avatar #671 to #653 - sketchE (01/18/2013) [-]
first off i dont support gun control. second off the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. for instance if vietnam goes communist so will the rest of asia. that is a common example of the fallacy
User avatar #678 to #671 - trollnot (01/18/2013) [-]
then Im not going to argue with you. We are "On the same side" this is over
#521 to #468 - leveltwowizard (01/18/2013) [-]
Death also seems to be a pretty big killer, we should probably ban that.
User avatar #631 to #521 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
You're on to something!
User avatar #505 to #468 - jasonbomb (01/18/2013) [-]
i say we just ban hands, hands make people kill people. stubbing eachother to death would also be alot more amusing.
User avatar #497 to #468 - InglushMayjur (01/18/2013) [-]
Cars and cigs need to be banned too. Much higher annual death toll than guns.
#448 - shazmothree (01/18/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#473 to #448 - jeezuskrest has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #527 to #473 - shazmothree (01/18/2013) [-]
That one has already been posted
User avatar #580 to #527 - jeezuskrest (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm sure alot of these have already been posted but I don't feel like scrolling through 5 pages of gun arguments to find out. So i'll just be a good sport and remove mine.
User avatar #596 to #580 - shazmothree (01/18/2013) [-]
I just check the top comments
User avatar #627 to #596 - jeezuskrest (01/18/2013) [-]
Why didn't I think of that haha... I see why you noticed it now my bad.
#470 to #448 - cabbagemayhem (01/18/2013) [-]
Oops, I banned guns...oh well, spilt milk.
User avatar #426 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
but for reals
Im no expert at using guns, but I can reload an ar15 in about 3 seconds. I feel like magazine size is irrelevant
#409 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
stupid liberals. guns is for self protection. you should not allowed police use guns recklessly at civilian.
#458 to #409 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
i love this comment because with that grammar and attitude, you are the person that people are trying to get guns away from.
#484 to #458 - cabbagemayhem (01/18/2013) [-]
However, you'll really end up taking guns away from people like me.
#404 - Bluemistake ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
The amount of butthurt Americans, if you just look at the amount of people that die by guns in the USA compared to the rest of the world is insane
#463 to #404 - cabbagemayhem (01/18/2013) [-]
That's due to a mix of other factors, such as culture, cultural differences, and the social stigma that already exists against responsible gun owners. Studies that have been done properly show otherwise, so...if YOU just look.
#460 to #404 - appleyjack **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#741 to #460 - Bluemistake ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Butthurt faaaaaags
User avatar #398 - dambusta (01/18/2013) [-]
wait obama's done what now? fill me in someone i'm other side of atlantic here!
User avatar #411 to #398 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
basically he made a speech urging congress to take action on gun control, where (among many other things) he said he wants a ban on rifle magazines that can have more than 10 rounds
User avatar #422 to #411 - dambusta (01/18/2013) [-]
thats bollocks that, england gets 10% of its humour by making fun of american guns! oh well, now we can make fun of him i suppose
User avatar #492 to #422 - reaperssprint (01/18/2013) [-]
This made me laugh. Thank you for that.
User avatar #394 - digits (01/18/2013) [-]
Obama is the worst president ever. Tru fax.
#485 to #394 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
I would say the worst president is Buchanan because he faild to keep the US together and the Civil war started due to him.

User avatar #413 to #394 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
lolol but jackson tho
User avatar #438 to #413 - eddiethead (01/18/2013) [-]
That may be true, but he's the only president to beat down a failed assassin.
User avatar #415 to #413 - digits (01/18/2013) [-]
No Jackson is better because duels lolol
#420 to #415 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
TRUE. true.
#355 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Tbh that's not a bad idea, the second amendment was all about self defense, and frankly if you cant defend yourself with 10 rounds you don't even deserve to own a gun.
User avatar #479 to #355 - ronniedrew (01/18/2013) [-]
The second amendment is all about the right of the American people to have the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments, foreign or domestic.
User avatar #405 to #355 - NotUpInHere (01/18/2013) [-]
what about your wife at home while youre away, and she's a terrible shot
#365 to #355 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
11 guys with guns invade your house. Your move, friendo.
User avatar #549 to #365 - mcrut (01/18/2013) [-]
and when is that a realistic situation besides the hood?
User avatar #579 to #549 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
The likelihood of its occurrence is irrelevant to whether or not you should take precautions against it. The chances of being struck by lightning are incredibly remote. Should I walk outside during a lightning storm, climb up a ladder and hold a golf club skyward?
As #479 pointed out, the 2nd Amendment's intention was to allow civilians to protect themselves in case of invasion or to protect themselves against the government if it went completely overboard. Makes a lot of sense to me, regardless of how unlikely either event might be.
#417 to #365 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
11 guys invade my house with guns? I must be doing some pretty illegal **** to bring that on myself, and if that were the case i wouldn't care for the law anyway.
#467 to #417 - appleyjack **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #399 to #365 - skulldan ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
2 clips?
#434 to #399 - roninneko (01/18/2013) [-]
2 clips?
User avatar #564 to #434 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
As #487 pointed out, "clips" is a colloquialism. Calm your tits.
#545 to #434 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Calm down /k/ommando wannabe, nobody cares.
#561 to #545 - roninneko has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #487 to #434 - ofmiceandmen (01/18/2013) [-]
But clips is a widely accepted slang term and you obviously knew what exactly what he meant and so did everyone else. I see no point in correcting him.
#498 to #487 - roninneko (01/18/2013) [-]
Widely accepted by 12-year-old CoDfags and limp-wristed junglebunnies, maybe.
User avatar #610 to #498 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
No, actually, he's right, and you're just being a butthurt gunfag at this point.
User avatar #512 to #498 - ofmiceandmen (01/18/2013) [-]
My army vet of a dad and all of his friends that were also in the army call them clips. He said his head sergeant did too. I'm aware it's not the "proper" term for them but the point of communication is to get the point across. That's all I'm saying.
#518 to #512 - roninneko (01/18/2013) [-]
Army? Cool story, bro; what was his unit, and where was he stationed?
User avatar #535 to #518 - ofmiceandmen (01/18/2013) [-]
He was actually in the Airforce. He was stationed at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee. Through the 80's. I forgot what his unit was. The reason he left is because my mom got pregnant with me.
#556 to #535 - roninneko (01/18/2013) [-]
Airforce? That's cute. Was he at least a pilot, or was he a desk-jockey POG? This is exactly the kind of lazy language 						****					 I'd expect from a POG who's never seen action. By the way, I still think you're full of 						****					.
Airforce? That's cute. Was he at least a pilot, or was he a desk-jockey POG? This is exactly the kind of lazy language **** I'd expect from a POG who's never seen action. By the way, I still think you're full of **** .
User avatar #575 to #556 - ofmiceandmen (01/18/2013) [-]
He was actually a crew chief on a blackhawk and went to Saudi Arabia in 1990... You can think I'm full of **** all you want. Some random guy on the internet's opinion of me or my dad does not bother me in the slightest.
User avatar #615 to #575 - roninneko (01/18/2013) [-]
So by Army and Air Force, I assume you mean Air Corps, the aviation wing of the army? So he did basic rifle training, and then never had to touch one again.
User avatar #652 to #615 - ofmiceandmen (01/18/2013) [-]
"Here go into this hostile country where there is always a possibility that the helicopter you are on may be shot down... we're not going to be giving you a weapon to defend yourself if that were to happen though." lolwut.jpg

In other words no, he had his rifle with him at all times just like every other crew chief.
User avatar #435 to #434 - skulldan ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
#442 to #435 - roninneko (01/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #469 to #442 - skulldan ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
wait wouldnt it be 2 clips then, to reload....
User avatar #462 to #442 - skulldan ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
the more you know
User avatar #408 to #399 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Too many bullets. Banned.
User avatar #424 to #408 - skulldan ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
i thought it was only 10 bullets per magazine?
User avatar #427 to #424 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
I was joking, bro.
User avatar #433 to #427 - skulldan ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
well i honestly dont know that well. I live in Australia so this doesnt effect me :P. also by your original comment assumes the person has 100% accuracy
#391 to #365 - mattymattwithahat (01/18/2013) [-]
You could throw the gun.
User avatar #346 - ishalltroll (01/18/2013) [-]
It'd be best for everybody to just drop this retarded argument and leave everything as it is. You'll never come to a solution that makes both sides happy with 2 fractions being so stoic on their opinions.
#330 - gibroner ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Kennedy had more reason than anyone to want gun control but he didn't try to ban any and do you know why? ... Because he wasn't a selfish dick!
User avatar #712 to #330 - jinjo (01/18/2013) [-]
Also, he got shot in the head.. kind of lessening his ability to do anything.
#354 to #330 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
something tells me if someone were to contact his ghost or something, that he may have changed his position on gun control...
User avatar #491 to #354 - ofmiceandmen (01/18/2013) [-]
I don't think the outcome would have changed at all. If someone wants to find a gun badly enough to kill the president of their own country then they damn sure will regardless of if they are illegal or not.
User avatar #396 to #354 - eatshitop (01/18/2013) [-]
"It will be illegal to shoot the president when it is a cheap shot."
User avatar #324 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
If someone can give me one good reason for a civilian to own an automatic rifle, I will go to their side of the argument. No paranoid ******** , that doesn't count as a good reason.
User avatar #410 to #324 - aceofshadows (01/18/2013) [-]
If you're as ignorant as your post makes you look, I wouldn't want you on my side.
User avatar #418 to #410 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm giving reasons for my thoughts instead of just calling someone "ignorant". Let's see you bring up a good point for your side that I haven't already **** logic on below you teenage videogame addicted stupid cunt.
User avatar #425 to #418 - aceofshadows (01/18/2013) [-]
"teenage videogame addicted stupid cunt"

You're ignorant.
User avatar #432 to #425 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Okay, I'm ignorant. Tell me why. Tell me why the public will ever need automatic guns (and please read below, I've covered most ******** arguments.)
User avatar #474 to #432 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
"Covered" or otherwise known as put his fingers in his ears and yelling "NAHH NAHH I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
User avatar #380 to #324 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
It's not to protect yourself from other people
it's to protect yourself from tyranny; from either a foreign or domestic government

insurance for bad politics, basically.
nothing wrong with not wanting to make yourself helpless, ya know?
User avatar #390 to #380 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Until criminals get the guns. This is the United States of America, and anyone with any foresight can tell that we will most likely never need to revolt.
User avatar #608 to #390 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
And what if they try to pass the Metahuman Registration Act? What then? We endanger Spider-Man's loved ones by forcing him to reveal his secret identity? **** that. He's a hero.
#496 to #390 - marrrty (01/18/2013) [-]
even if they did ban guns criminals would still get them, it would be just like illegal drugs even though they are "banned" a **** ton of people still get them.
User avatar #406 to #390 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
lol wot
the fact that we're even having this discussion is proof enough that it's not about individual liberty for many people and politicians, it's about forcing what THEY think is the right thing. it happens on both sides

"i dont think guns make sense, so lets get rid of them for everyone!"
"I dont want to pay into a medicare program, so lets just end it!"

so yeah. liberty and social choice isn't given out by authority, it has to be maintained by the people.
User avatar #412 to #406 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I think most of what you're saying in this message is covered by more of my other replies below. I'm honestly getting tired and losing my conviction to care enough to argue, I'm just trying to close up lose ends so I can move on.
#419 to #412 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #446 to #419 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Among this fecal hurricane, thanks for being reasonable. It's refreshing.
User avatar #454 to #446 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
well if there's one thing I love, its a fecal hurricane!
#376 to #324 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
here i did a little research for you on firearm homicide enjoy
12996 homicides in 2010 8775 homicides by firearms in 2010
6009 handguns=46% of total homicides 68.5% of firearm homicides
358 rifles=2.7% of total homicides 4.1% of firearm homicides
373 shotguns=2.9% of total homicides 4.3% of firearm homicides
96 other guns=0.7% of total homicides 1.1% of firearm homicides
1939 not stated= 14.9% of total homicides 22.1% of firearm homicides
Source www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/

#384 to #376 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
As you can see most gun homicides in the US are done by a handgun. I dont see anyone bitching about them. You are more likely to get beaten to death than you are to get killed by an assault rifle. **** you are more likely to get stabbed than shot by anything else besides a handgun.
User avatar #482 to #384 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
More people have guns and knives and things than automatic weapons. In the shootouts that do have automatic weapons, more people are likely to get shot.
#429 to #384 - whogivesaratsass (01/18/2013) [-]
someone has a lot of time on their hands
User avatar #361 to #324 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Technically, mercenaries are civilians.

But, seriously: marksmanship is a hobby that exists, people collect firearms, a more powerful weapon gives the owner an edge in home defense.
User avatar #368 to #361 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
The only home defense situation that would warrant the use of an automatic weapon is against another automatic weapon. As a hobby, I say **** that, public safety comes first. You can have just as much fun shooting cans with a pistol or hunting rifle or even a shotgun. If you really want to shoot up a school or play rambo in the back yard, you can make your own gun.
User avatar #386 to #368 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Like I said, an "edge." As in, an advantage. If a dude breaks in with a pistol, and you have a carbine, he's pretty much ****** unless he's an awesome shot.

Regardless, exactly how is public safety more protected if assault rifles are illegal but shotguns are kosher? You'd probably kill/wound/maim more people emptying a shotgun into a crowd than a SMG or assault rifle.
User avatar #423 to #386 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Shotguns aren't as deadly at range.
User avatar #452 to #423 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Point, but how much range do we need to consider something dangerous? You can hit things accurately from 50 yards or more with buckshot, IIRC. If we're worried about especially long ranges, a hunting rifle is just as capable of picking off somebody from far away.
User avatar #459 to #452 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Hunting rifle can't get off as many shots per second as an automatic weapon.
User avatar #475 to #459 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Ah, so we're only interested in protect large groups of people stand very close together, and not individuals?

You can't have it both ways. Automatic fire isn't going to accurately hit people from 100+ yards away. If you're going to use a rifle, any rifle, for its range you'll need to place your shots, and fire single-shot or in the briefest of bursts.
User avatar #359 to #324 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
This has nothing to do with automatic fire capabilities, but more with uneducated thinking that a gun with a pistol grip and adjustable stock is a "high powered military assault weapon", .223 is a **** tier cartridge, but nobody is interested in banning large caliber "hunting rifles"
User avatar #364 to #359 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I just now heard about the ban, so I don't know much about it, but I personally think that any automatic fire weaponry has a place in the public's hands.
User avatar #381 to #364 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
"I just now heard about the ban, so I don't know much about it"

Why don't you try reading the damn thing before giving your opinion. You'll seem less ignorant that way.

You do realize that automatic weapons are a minority when it comes to gun deaths right?
User avatar #397 to #381 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about the ******* gun ban, I'm talking about gun rights in general. And yeah, automatic weapons are a minority, because less people HAVE them. In the situations WITH automatic weapons more people die than in the situations with handguns and **** .
User avatar #439 to #397 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
As I said earlier, murders with legal automatics have only happened twice, and no, auto =/= more kills, that is complete and total ******** . Automatic fire is exceedingly difficult to control, and wastes ammunition. Shot placement > volume of fire, just look at Simo Hayha, he killed over 500 Russians in the winter war wit his bolt-action mosin nagant, and they were doing a hell of a lot more than shooting back at him.
User avatar #414 to #397 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
You're joking right? There are most instances around the world of MANY more individuals being killed by a killer wielding a KNIFE than an assault weapon.
User avatar #436 to #414 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Yeah no **** , because knifes are easier to get. But in the event of a shootout with an assault rifle, more people will die than in a knife fight.
User avatar #445 to #436 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
Or someone with that assault rifle could stop someone going on a killing spree with a knife. I literally also just said, MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN MANY EVENTS INVOLVING KNIVES THAN ASSAULT WEAPONS, meaning, there are more cases in which higher numbers are murdered as a result of knives than assault weapons.

Why aren't you advocating the ban of knives?
User avatar #451 to #445 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Your argument has deteriorated into rabble. This portion of the thread is done.
User avatar #455 to #451 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
So you can't answer my question, therefor you end the conversation. Very nice showing how childish you are.
User avatar #374 to #364 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
In order to obtain one, you need to either be a class 3 FFL, or jump through some hoops with the BATFE, and even then you must find a transferable, preban automatic which can cost between $25,000-$50,000. and then it is registered with the BATFE as an NFA weapon.
also, to my knowledge, only 2 murders have ever been committed with a legally owned automatic.
User avatar #385 to #374 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Without a place to get them legally, there's nowhere to get them ILlegally. Someone with a good record and **** probly buys 'em and sells for a higher price to criminals.
User avatar #421 to #385 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
The United States has some of the worst border (land and sea) security in the world,most guns used in crimes are smuggled in. And with minimal instruction a single person can turn out ~30 STEN family submachineguns in a day with minimal equipment.
And people do not "resell" NFA weapons and accesories, because they are registered, and the BATFE does regular inspections.
User avatar #437 to #421 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
The less options criminals have to get guns, the better. Less is better than more, even if none isn't an option.
User avatar #447 to #437 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
A complete ban on guns would work in some countries, in America, it would just make it worse.
User avatar #453 to #447 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Based on what logic?
User avatar #477 to #453 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
The amount of guns in the country, 50% of the worlds guns. The US government does not have the resources to confiscate all of them. and most states do not have gun registries, so nobody knows who owns what. essentially the best they can do is disarm the law abiding citizens while criminals keep the guns they have and buy up more from crooked government agents. And even if they had the resources, the sheer cost would push them over the fiscal cliff.
User avatar #486 to #477 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
All you need is a few cops per city going door to door searching houses for the assault weapons (and possibly finding more evidence to crimes) during the times they would normally be gaffing about.
User avatar #494 to #486 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
That would take years, and confiscation would be handled by the BATFE, an organization with an overinflated budget and incompetent bureaucrats. Also, some towns, cities, and states have the authority to deny access to federal agents.
User avatar #499 to #494 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Well that's ****** up. Still, the actual confiscation measures is another argument entirely. I was merely talking about the concept, not the logistics.
User avatar #348 to #324 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
Give me one reason a household needs more than one knife, a single knife can kill multiple individuals and CHILDREN! So obviously to protect the CHILDREN we should remove all knives from peoples homes, I mean why would they possibly need more than one? Oh and they also need to be registered and you need to have a background check whenever you sharpen it.

Seriously though, we are talking about guns and clip sizes in general, people should be able to own them because it is used for sport, fun, and self-defense, and yes self=defense counts as a ******* reason it's not "paranoid" ******** .
User avatar #357 to #348 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Sport and fun are below public safety, and there is not one goddamn person who is gonna break into your house that you would be more well off with an assault rifle than with a pistol or hunting rifle.
User avatar #379 to #357 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
A "hunting rifle" rifle is pretty much the worst thing possible for home defense, you'd be better off hitting him over the head with it.
Also, like "assault weapons", the term "hunting rifle" has no definition, one could cut rifling grooves in a lead pipe, fire a bullet out of it at an animal and it could be classed as a "hunting rifle".
User avatar #366 to #357 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
Public safety? Guns stop more crimes then they cause. You should probably address my whole knife thing then, they kill people, why is it not being stopped?

" there is not one goddamn person who is gonna break into your house that you would be more well off with an assault rifle than with a pistol or hunting rifle."

I'm not talking about purely assault weapons, I'm talking guns in general no matter the clip size.
#345 to #324 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
1. To form a militia
2. Recreation
3. Red Dawn
I know the last 2 are BS
He fact is the U.S. is such a large country that a revolution would be too hard without them. The large amount of shootings is because of huge test group, and too many human rights for the homicidal and crazy people. I dont see why people complain about the u.s. and guns when in some European countries trains are being blown up and people lob grenades into crowds.
User avatar #352 to #345 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
What are you, retarded? You think a few hicks with guns can rival the UNITED STATES MILITARY? That's ignorant as **** .
#400 to #352 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Well, you judgemental raccoon, most hick have more then a "few" guns. I know people who have armories practically. They would distribute them to the rest of the unarmed militia. By your logic, a "few" hicks would attempt to take the strongest and most advanced miitary force in the world alone, carrying 20 or so guns each.
User avatar #407 to #400 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Let's give an entire city assault rifles. 1 each, plenty of ammo. Now tell me, how is that gonna help when TANKS are rolling through the streets? Do civilians have bomber jets?
User avatar #457 to #407 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
Take a look at Stalingrad, children destroyed as many tanks with molotovs as the red army did. And the US government has a limit on how much force its willing to use on revolutionaries. airstrikes would likely be limited to rural areas, and if a revolution were to happen, a large portion of the military would defect, with their equipment.
User avatar #472 to #457 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
So in event of a revolution, the military defectors would bring assault weapons to the civilians? Then why do the civilians need to buy any now?
User avatar #483 to #472 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
Not "assault weapons" (that isn't a real word btw), the soldiers may have their issued firearms, but the equipment I mentioned would be thins like tanks, aircraft, artillery pieces, even ships.
User avatar #488 to #483 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
That makes the automatic weapons seem pretty insignificant, doesn't it?
#508 to #488 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
No. All those things are controlled by men. Men are susceptible to guns. A battleship know neither good nor evil, it merely shoots when you tell it to.
User avatar #514 to #508 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
A battleship isn't controlled by man? Really, I do love philosophy, but this is not the place for it. B for effort.
#530 to #514 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
F for failure to read correctly. I said that they ARE controlled by men. Please double check before making incorrect statements in the future.
User avatar #534 to #530 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Bad grammar, you opposed guns against ships, whether you meant to or not. I'm sorry I can't ******* read minds!
#552 to #534 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Apology accepted. As for the grammar, keys are missed that result in bad spelling, but the grammar shows no error. Again, please double check your responses. The sentence in question was a simple declarative statement.
User avatar #500 to #488 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
The only place of tanks on the modern battlefield is against other armored vehicles, a fighter jet cannot stand on a street corner and keep order, ships cannot search houses, automatic weapons are the backbone of a revolution.
User avatar #509 to #500 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
You can't search a house with a pistol? And I'm sure one of those ships, tanks, or aircraft has some automatic weapons in them.
User avatar #526 to #509 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
Clearing rooms isn't as easy as kicking a door down and sticking your head inside, and a ships armory doesn't not contain enough weapons to arm every revolutionary in the US.
User avatar #532 to #526 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I still call it an effective revolution.
User avatar #542 to #532 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
100 million gun owners vs US gov = revolutionary victory
100 million former gun owners running around with improvised guns and a bit of military equipment = 100 million people executed for treason because they used their second amendment right to rise up against a tyrannical government.
User avatar #547 to #542 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
100 million people wouldn't HAVE guns otherwise, automatically (pun). That's a dangerous assumption.
#583 to #547 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Now, to business. I quote, "If someone can give me one good reason for a civilian to own an automatic rifle, I will go to their side of the argument. No paranoid ******** , that doesn't count as a good reason." You have your good reason. Your attempts to refute these reasons have been quelled. I hope you accept our arguments and see the validity of them. But the real question is, will you deliver?
User avatar #590 to #583 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Nope. I got the last word on all arguments that weren't faff. I saw zero good reasons.
#614 to #590 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
If you truely feel that way, then i feel sorry for you. What is the purpose of posing a question that you do not want the answer to? Do you fear truth? If so, as the evidence suggests, you are a lost cause. Have fun with your misconstrued notions of logic.
User avatar #681 to #614 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I wasn't posing a question, I was challenging a debate. You may feel I lost, and that's your own bias view, but in my eyes, there was no argument I didn't prove as invalid. If you want to say I didn't argue correctly, that is your prerogative, and you can cease contact with me as I did those I felt were using backwards logic.
#705 to #681 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
You asked, we answered.
#440 to #407 - anonymous (01/18/2013) [-]
Building are pretty solid defense against tanks. A tall building will be too high for the tank to fire upon. Civilians can have military anti tank weapons in some states, IEDs are pretty effective, and C4 can be made at home in about a month. Your close minded views on military strategy and weapon effectiveness is appalling. Not to mention your belief of extreme government oppression and control.
#367 to #352 - internetzsoviet (01/18/2013) [-]
Are you ******* stupid? You honestly think the whole US Military is gonna gun down its own citizens? They'll probably turn along with the citizens.

The Marines will not kill any US citizens under any circumstances. More than half the Army and National Guard arent about to either.
User avatar #372 to #367 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Do you really think America will ever need/have a revolution? No. That's just retarded paranoid "Obama is a terrorist taking over the government" ******** .
User avatar #388 to #372 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
"Do you really think America will ever need/have a revolution?"

YES, you know how I know? Because we already have had one, hence the american revolution. and you know what's funnier? That was for even less **** then is happening now.
User avatar #401 to #388 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
That has to be the dumbest argument yet. The American revolution WAS AGAINST BRITAIN! The MONARCHY! We're a ******* democracy now, and if someone seems tyrannty, we're not gonna elect 'em! If we're stupid enough to elect a tyrant, than I doubt we'll care enough to revolt over it.
User avatar #430 to #401 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
Really? Because the one thing that gives civilians a force advantage over the government is being demonized against. Also the reason we revolted was because we weren't being given a say in parliament, so in a situation where I don't know, almost all legal gun owners in america are being silenced due to the popularization of one instance of mass murder when guns deter more crime and stop more crime than they cause, seems like a pretty similar scenario sparky.
User avatar #375 to #372 - internetzsoviet (01/18/2013) [-]
Of course it is. Obama is not a terrorist but he is a less than proficient leader in protecting American rights.

Thinking that the government wont ever turn on its population is a stupid idea. History is filled with examples of it.
User avatar #387 to #375 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
You're a paranoid nutjob, our conversation is done.
#322 - tsta (01/18/2013) [-]
this site has become a right-wing circle jerk lately.
this site has become a right-wing circle jerk lately.
User avatar #344 to #322 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
You don't have to lean to the right to realize that putting more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners does not inhibit criminals in the slightest.
User avatar #326 to #322 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
Or people are just voicing there opinions because right now is an important time to, and this is a community where one would probably do such a thing.

But hell what the **** do I know.
User avatar #325 to #322 - messager (01/18/2013) [-]
you don't have to be right wing to be against gun restrictions
User avatar #328 to #325 - tsta (01/18/2013) [-]
just in general. allot of right wing tendencies.
User avatar #373 to #328 - internetzsoviet (01/18/2013) [-]
Libertarianism is not right-wing.

Learn your politics.
User avatar #312 - goblingang (01/18/2013) [-]
By the logic of people who are against gun control/regulation, every nation in the world should have access to nukes.
User avatar #431 to #312 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
You're ******* retarded.

1) Nuclear weaponry is the greatest evil in human history. No man, group, or country NEEDS that.

2) What ******* good does cutting off a poisoned stem do if the problem is in the roots of the plant? The people who are using the guns are the problem.

FPSRussia has a limitless supply of weaponry he can and does use. Has HE gone on a GTA-esque murder spree? No. The guns aren't the problem. The problem is that laws don't take the buyer's psychological condition seriously. Forget background checks; some people need a month or two with a psychologist before they should be cleared for purchase.
User avatar #464 to #431 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Your post made me wonder for the first time: where the **** DOES FPSRussia get all of his toys? He's got an arsenal that makes my Fallout characters jealous.
User avatar #471 to #464 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
Most of his standard weapons come from a local gun store. How he gets his rockets and vehicles (even for rent) is beyond me.
User avatar #476 to #471 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
I think it might be beyond anybody but the CIA and Interpol. The dude has a minigun and a flamethrower!
User avatar #351 to #312 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
Or, we just understand that banning assault weapons does not prevent most crimes, which are conducted with pistols, or that tighter regulations on law-abiding citizens do not inhibit criminals. CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT ILLEGAL.
User avatar #789 to #351 - goblingang (01/18/2013) [-]
Here in the UK, handguns are of course illegal (you can get a permit for a shotgun for proved hunting purposes in the countryside). Therefore they are very hard to get hold of, and only the hardest of criminals get them. And this also means that these guys who have a gun don't walk around with them, as there is a lengthy prison sentence for possession, and this in turn means they are less likely to just randomly shoot on impulse when **** kicks off. All this also means we don't get the ridiculous school shooting you guys get in the USA.
User avatar #790 to #789 - schneidend (01/18/2013) [-]
No. Instead, you have subway bombings and lots of stabbings. The UK isn't some kind of utopia because guns are illegal. Putting even greater restrictions on law-abiding citizens doesn't inhibit criminals. Even petty crooks like your average black street gang in Florida has AK-47s and other rifles. You're an idiot if you think they bought them at the local gun store, and you're even more of an idiot if you think banning them will somehow cause their sources to magically dry up.
User avatar #809 to #790 - goblingang (01/21/2013) [-]
Erm.. for one, we don't get lots of subway bombings, we just had the 7/7 bombings which were a terrorist attack, just like 9/11. And don't think I'm under the impression the UK is a safe place to be, I grew up one of the rougher areas of London, so I don't have any false impressions bout where I live. However, murder rates in the UK are much lower than in the US, and I'm talking proportionately, so don't bring up differences in population. Although I will also attribute this to a higher standard of living even in the poorer communities where there aren't jobs thanks to a better welfare system, one must admit also that a lack of ease of access to guns means not every youth on the street who thinks he's "gangsta" is packing a gloch 45 in his trousers, and so there aren't as many murders. And don't forget a stabbing is alot more personal, and one is more likely to survive a stabbing than a gunshot, which means deaths by stabbings are nowhere near as common as you seem to believe, or as shootings in america.
 Friends (0)