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:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#262 - zielscheibe (01/22/2013) [-]
In  Germany  we have  a very strict  gun regulation / law    
   
Its so damn hard to get even a BB  or 22cal Gun - even softair ( Toy guns )  are regulated   
   
BUT we still got our insane people and our shootings here to    
So i guess this content has a point
In Germany we have a very strict gun regulation / law

Its so damn hard to get even a BB or 22cal Gun - even softair ( Toy guns ) are regulated

BUT we still got our insane people and our shootings here to
So i guess this content has a point
#247 - Orangepeel (01/22/2013) [-]
Gun control would work if criminals obeyed the law.
User avatar #417 to #247 - rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
well it's a little harder for them to get guns if no one is selling them
#435 to #417 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
That's true.
Less guns, less shootings.
How hard is that for them to understand?
User avatar #445 to #432 - rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
unless there is some major corruption going with the govn't and manufacturers, where are criminals going to get their guns? yes a lot will get them but i don't think poor store burglars are going to get their hands on them quite easily
User avatar #458 to #445 - mrdrpage (01/22/2013) [-]
>Be America
>236
> ****** economy
>Shut down major gun manufacturers from the public
>Kill off a major money maker
>America sucks worse

It'll be like prohibition did back in the day. It'll just make the economy suck because people will smuggle it in anyway.

Ever heard of Mexico? We do a great job of keeping illegal immigrants out, right? They can bring guns with them. BAM! Bigger black market.

Let's just say that none of the above happens.

You know what happens then, right? We start fighting with knives. Government will want to ban that too. Don't believe me? It's happening in Europe right now.
User avatar #462 to #458 - rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
most of the guns in Mexico come from the US
#469 to #462 - mrdrpage (01/22/2013) [-]
What's stopping them from coming right back and Mexican cartels turning a profit?

You still didn't hit any of my other points.
User avatar #478 to #469 - rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
that would be stupid from their part. that would be like americans smuggling drugs down to mexico
#480 to #478 - mrdrpage (01/22/2013) [-]
Do you understand the nonsense you're spewing right now?
User avatar #258 to #247 - pepemex (01/22/2013) [-]
Then all we need to do is make crime illegal.
#242 - evilpotato (01/22/2013) [-]
>implying that keeping thirty round magazines out of easy reach for mentally retarded people is an insane law.
#256 to #242 - highclassbean (01/22/2013) [-]
because magazines are the only way guns can receive bullets
User avatar #269 to #256 - evilpotato (01/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you actually know what you're talking about...

Your picture has a gun with a belt fed magazine. It still would be held under the ten round magazine law.
User avatar #279 to #269 - Zarke (01/22/2013) [-]
It doesn't take long to reload a gun (sit down for an afternoon and practice and you can probably get it down to a couple seconds or less). People wouldn't carry less bullets. They'd carry more magazines.
User avatar #283 to #279 - evilpotato (01/22/2013) [-]
Every second counts when a person is shooting innocent people.
User avatar #284 to #283 - Zarke (01/22/2013) [-]
And when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.
#274 to #269 - Orangepeel (01/22/2013) [-]
Why would a killer have any obligation to obey a ten round magazine law?
User avatar #277 to #274 - evilpotato (01/22/2013) [-]
A lot of multiple murders have been done with legally obtained firearms. If they had had to reload three times, perhaps less people would have died.
User avatar #287 to #277 - Orangepeel (01/22/2013) [-]
Some, but not all. 75% of all gun-related crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.
If gangsters had a choice between shooting up diner with either a thirty round magazine or a ten round magazine, and choosing the latter would mean breaking one less law, which do you think they would choose?
User avatar #333 to #301 - lyiat (01/22/2013) [-]
Yes, because Mother Jones and Washington Post are far superior to hard police and military statistics on the subject.

You need to login to view this link

This one goes infinitely more in depth than your source, and demonstrates that IN ALL GUN RELATED CRIME, not just shooting sprees, only a possible six percent can be attributed to legally purchased guns.
#273 to #269 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
How would outlawing "high capacity magazines" save even one life? All this does is stir the hornet's nest of people that believe in the letter AND spirit of the Second Amendment.
How would outlawing "high capacity magazines" save even one life? All this does is stir the hornet's nest of people that believe in the letter AND spirit of the Second Amendment.
User avatar #286 to #273 - evilpotato (01/22/2013) [-]
People can still have firearms to defend themselves, but now there are more thorough background checks to help make sure they are only for general people likely to only use it for defense. And if you use it for the legal use, the chances of a need for a thirty round magazine are unlikely
0
#227 - takashiminamori has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #211 - Sinless (01/22/2013) [-]
I just think it's funny how all these major shootings made people want to promote gun laws.......yet none of those gun laws would've prevented any of the shootings.
#250 to #211 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
The Sandy Hook shooter took his mom's legally obtained assault rifle and then shot up the elementary school. So, if it were illegal to have an assault rifle, there is a chance that the shooting would not have happened. Also, look up the statistics. Countries with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun crime. It's a simple fact. I have friends from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and they think it's insane how people here in the USA want to have AK47s and guns like that.
User avatar #331 to #250 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/22/2013) [-]
Lower gun crime, higher overall crime.
#388 to #331 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
We have low crime, We just have much broader discriptions of violent crime and sexual assault than you. We even record victim statements as crimes. Comparing crime rates between countries is not easy but dont be fooled, Crime is a bigger problem in the US than it is here. And even in a strange world where it was worse here, i'd prefer to have my ipod stolen than be shot.
User avatar #454 to #388 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/22/2013) [-]
I'd prefer to shoot the criminal than have my ipod stolen.
User avatar #282 to #250 - Zarke (01/22/2013) [-]
Lowe rates of GUN crime (which doesn't make much sense. If you have great gun control, why do you have any gun crime?), but what about the rates of other crimes? People who want to hurt people will hurt people with whatever they can get their hands on.

Isn't the UK trying to regulate knives now as well?
User avatar #270 to #250 - Sinless (01/22/2013) [-]
All that would've happened if assault rifles were made illegal is that his mother would have a pistol or two instead. He would've gone about it differently of course, maybe taken a little longer to get some kills, but still end the same with him taking his life after taking other's lives.

And if you're going to bring up statistics I'm sure those other countries have a higher rate of mental health, morality, and good ethics.
User avatar #209 - codyxvasco (01/22/2013) [-]
I'm reading every comment in Penn's voice in my mind.

Please, everyone continue.
#205 - warlockrichard ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #208 to #205 - Vuumbleman (01/22/2013) [-]
Quick! Protect us with a child umbrella!
#244 to #222 - Vuumbleman (01/22/2013) [-]
HAHAHA! Yes!
HAHAHA! Yes!
#201 - larukuai (01/22/2013) [-]
I know there's a 						****					 load of people debating below me but I had to get this out:   
   
						*******					 love Penn & Teller   
   
they say everything I think so perfectly   
   
<3   
   
Also, Gun regulation is   
   
						********					!   
   
:D
I know there's a **** load of people debating below me but I had to get this out:

******* love Penn & Teller

they say everything I think so perfectly

<3

Also, Gun regulation is

******** !

:D
#252 to #201 - savirleo ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
If only the second season was longer
User avatar #213 to #201 - xgeneration ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
sauce????
User avatar #219 to #213 - Zhuan (01/22/2013) [-]
Korean war zombie desk car. (Kore wa zombie desu ka?)
#199 - fortes (01/22/2013) [-]
********* in the comment section tonight.
#187 - riddlerboy (01/22/2013) [-]
Yet other countries dont seem to have the same problem, so clearly you aren't doing something right.
#302 to #187 - trollnot (01/22/2013) [-]
Hurr durrs
User avatar #183 - mrjweezy (01/22/2013) [-]
I really hate these guys...
I thought would never have to see them again.
i thought wrong
User avatar #223 to #183 - goodguygary (01/22/2013) [-]
looks like fj disagrees with you
User avatar #620 to #223 - mrjweezy (01/22/2013) [-]
So...they can disagree with me .Its they.re right to have an opinion.
what am i supposed to say " you cant do that because i don't like it.
Its times like this I think on how much a scumbag magical fairy princess is.
#176 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
They are seizing our liberty. The liberty our forefathers has fought will be gone.
If we banned guns, bad people still can manage to get it from black market. We, a good people, left nothing but melee weapon against the explosive one. Our life is threatened.
(Source : theweek. com/article/index/237900/what-gun-control-can-and-cant-do/ )


Sandy hook tragedy also a hoax. It is not caused by a mentally ill person, but rather a trained, probably soldier. It is said that Israel was responsible to this tragedy to teach american a lesson regarding the Middle East issue in United Nations assembly.
(Source : presstv. ir/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/ )

I have put the source to support my arguments. So your move liberals!
#210 to #176 - Uranium (01/22/2013) [-]
I believe your ******** meter is functioning properly, because nearly everything you said was COMPLETE ******** .
User avatar #204 to #176 - Keoul (01/22/2013) [-]
I get the feeling that a LOT of people seem to think the black market is just next door or something.
Go out into the some alley, bam you're in the black market.
If it was that easy to find wouldn't the cops have shut them down already?
#190 to #176 - swagbot (01/22/2013) [-]
+1

People don't like the Sandy Hook/Aurora Conspiracy scenarios thought - and to be honest, what do they matter? Just discuss the other points - the fact that the gun did nothing wrong, the loss of liberty and the fact that places with greater gun ownership usually have much lower crime.
#255 to #190 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
False. First world countries with stricter gun laws than the USA have lower levels of gun related crimes (such as shooting). Look it up.
#626 to #255 - swagbot (01/23/2013) [-]
But (usually) higher violent crime rates.

Look that up. Faggot.
#184 to #176 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
Exactly how would people get guns from the black market? They'd almost have to send it piece by piece because there's no way in hell you could hide a gun and ship it. And once you got all the pieces you'd still have to build it which would take quite a while unless you knew what you were doing. They'd also be much much more expensive if they were bought from the black market. They wouldn't be as easy to obtain as you make it out to be.
User avatar #232 to #184 - goodguygary (01/22/2013) [-]
firearms and drugs get smuggled in from mexico a lot, probably would still be expensive
User avatar #175 - steelpanther (01/22/2013) [-]
I have my open carry permit. Im not trying to sound like an ignorant red neck who carries a gun just to feel like a bad ass (granted I live in a very rural part of Pennsylvania) but I do feel safer when I have my pistol with me. You cant really trust anyone these days which is really depressing but thats the price we pay for living in such a messed up society.
#162 - ronyx (01/22/2013) [-]
ITT: Americans continue to bitch about their guns.    
Make yourself a favor and go on to the next post.
ITT: Americans continue to bitch about their guns.
Make yourself a favor and go on to the next post.
User avatar #238 to #162 - goodguygary (01/22/2013) [-]
replace guns with any other word and you're described america since its beginning
User avatar #241 to #238 - goodguygary (01/22/2013) [-]
You've

oh **** me
#189 to #162 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
"Make yourself a favor..."
Make yourself.."
" ************ ..."
+1
#167 to #162 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#160 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Can we have something funny instead of political ******** that fills the comment section with arguments?
User avatar #155 - tiddycats (01/22/2013) [-]
I don't believe that banning them will really solve a damn thing, most of these shooters could have done the same thing with pistols anyway, but seriously, quit your bitching. This ban was already in place before in 2004, it just didn't get renewed since then.
What I do think is hilarious is how no one brings up that the government is still allowed to read your e-mails, they're still allowed to search you without probable cause, all these other actually important rights Obama is still infringing on and no one cares but touch my guns and were gonna have a frickin' problem.
#264 to #155 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
You can kill way more quickly with an AK or other assault weapon than you can with a pistol.
#165 to #155 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
The ban was nerfed. It was only a ban on assault weapons made after the ban was passed. Look it up.
#152 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
I think what people forget in the whole &quot;gun control&quot; discussion is about the original intent of the 2nd (tightly coupled with the 3rd) amendment. It's not about being able to buy a simple consumer product that some people can misuse, make others uncomfortable, or just because the feel like it that day.   
   
The 2nd Amendment is about giving the populace a mechanism to keep the government in check. An armed revolt is a handy way for the people to take back their country from a corrupt government. (We can argue whether one exists today, but that's besides the point.) The 3rd Amendment prevents the government from garrisoning troops in civilian homes, occupying and suppressing them as needed.   
   
So guns are a part of American life, and the price to pay is that unfortunately those guns will be misused. We can reduce the amount of misuse, indeed  history and statistics have shown we have despite what is going in the news, and we should. Not through misguided but well-meaning legislation, but through holding people accountable and giving them an opportunity to protect themselves. Guns are not inherently good or evil, it's how they are used makes them that way.   
   
I believe we need guns that can, at some level, allow us to take on the military if we have to. Incrementally crippling the citizenry's ability to fight back is the slow road to tyranny.   
   
   
tl;dr - some gun deaths are the price we pay for keeping the government in check.
I think what people forget in the whole "gun control" discussion is about the original intent of the 2nd (tightly coupled with the 3rd) amendment. It's not about being able to buy a simple consumer product that some people can misuse, make others uncomfortable, or just because the feel like it that day.

The 2nd Amendment is about giving the populace a mechanism to keep the government in check. An armed revolt is a handy way for the people to take back their country from a corrupt government. (We can argue whether one exists today, but that's besides the point.) The 3rd Amendment prevents the government from garrisoning troops in civilian homes, occupying and suppressing them as needed.

So guns are a part of American life, and the price to pay is that unfortunately those guns will be misused. We can reduce the amount of misuse, indeed history and statistics have shown we have despite what is going in the news, and we should. Not through misguided but well-meaning legislation, but through holding people accountable and giving them an opportunity to protect themselves. Guns are not inherently good or evil, it's how they are used makes them that way.

I believe we need guns that can, at some level, allow us to take on the military if we have to. Incrementally crippling the citizenry's ability to fight back is the slow road to tyranny.


tl;dr - some gun deaths are the price we pay for keeping the government in check.
User avatar #510 to #152 - mountainyard (01/22/2013) [-]
As far as I can think of, the people of the United States has only revolted once against the government and that was before the constitution was written.
I am Norwegian in my opinion we have a very good gun-policy here, and for that reason I can't understand how americans can be so attached to their guns. In my house we have a couple of paintball-markers, a couple of BB-guns and a K98 Mauser.

If the government for some unknown reason would be corrupt and we needed it gone, we would have a hard time doing so. And in the US, I don't think it would be very different. With over a million soldiers and some of the most advanced weaponry and training in the world, how could the people take down the government without losses so big it wouldn't be worth it?

Now. Please, correct me.
User avatar #515 to #510 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Why even revolt from the British then? Why fight back? Why not let the government roll right over us? After all like you said the odds say we will lose. Why should we have liberty then if the people aren't willing to fight for it?
User avatar #545 to #515 - mountainyard (01/22/2013) [-]
The way I see it, the American people have never used the 2nd amendment for it's intended purpose. Just a scapegoat for having weapons, and then many people use these weapons to kill other people. Other citizens...
User avatar #548 to #545 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Why have knives then? We do have a history of miss using them.
User avatar #615 to #548 - mountainyard (01/22/2013) [-]
We have knives to cut food, and such. It is not a tool made specifically for killing.
Guns can be used for hunting and competition-shooting. But that is not the purpose of the object.
No other recreational object can do as much damage as a gun.
They are constantly used for killing...
User avatar #617 to #615 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
So is rat poison.

And other unpleasantness when mixed with cool aid
User avatar #618 to #617 - mountainyard (01/22/2013) [-]
You are just mentioning things that might be used for killing. Like a rock. It was never designed to kill humans. An M16 or an UZI are designed for one thing. Killing humans, rat poison is designed to kill rats.
Most shotguns are designed for hunting. They can also be used to kill human beings. This is the only point you can mention. Hunting-weapons used for human-killing.
User avatar #624 to #618 - undeadwill (01/23/2013) [-]
So should that mean we should disarm our police force at the same time?
User avatar #547 to #545 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Did you forget we also protect ourselves criminals? What about the Texas revolution?
#492 to #152 - stubbernaut (01/22/2013) [-]
What the hell is with Americans that argue like this!
First of all, I'm in Australia and here, with hardly any guns, barely anyone feels the slightest bit of a threat of government corruption that would require us to fight back with guns.
Also, something that even the picture on your post shows, the military has jet fighters, bombs, and a large array of weapons, which when used against the population, will mean you have no chance against a corrupt government intent on controlling you.
"Keeping the government in check"? Good luck with that, they vastly outgun you even with the availability of guns to the public.
Maybe you should, like so many other countries, try to have a little faith in your government, put some effort into making it better, spend less time worrying that your own military will betray you, and you might get somewhere.
User avatar #523 to #492 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Because Americans have a very mentally sick society, dude. Don't see that paranoia against the Government rules them, in complete contradiction with their patriotism and "willing to serve"?!

They're so full of contradicting ***** it's much easier to leave them in their own cesspit.

They can't, they are basically UNABLE to understand that there can be a society can be safe WITHOUT firearms. Heck, America is the land where people cherish and worship their Flag, their Bible, and their Gun... ALL without any contradiction to one another.
#528 to #523 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
This image has expired
have you ever been to America?
User avatar #531 to #528 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
I don't have to go to a country to understand how it works.

There's a thing called "the press" that performs for over 200 years (regardless of how an event is presented, the basic fact exists and can be analyzed). Internet also grants access to all the information one could need.
User avatar #539 to #531 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
in addition to my last statement you seem to think we are all rednecks. So you have no idea about the people here
User avatar #542 to #539 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Not all. Just the vast majority.
User avatar #546 to #542 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Really now. You claim to only know us from the press and news. I can tell you your news must be bias.
User avatar #551 to #546 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
What did I say about reading the facts/info themselves, not the way they are presented?!

For instance: gawker.com/5932846/american-becomes-laughingstock-of-canada-after-letter-to-editor-lamenting-lack-of-handgun-during-mild-confrontation

This occurred last year and I'll never stop laughing in amazement at that particular individual's mindset. Of course you will find the same info on ten different sites, the fact still remains. Also bear in mind that this American was a POLICE OFFICER, therefore a representative of authority.
User avatar #556 to #551 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Even in Texas there are not as many Rednecks as you claim. You have no idea what our country is like. So stop pretending like you know my country better than I do.

I do not see revolution as a action movie. The people who want revolution and change in our political system are the ones who are well aware how impossible it is to get the government to listen to its voters. So stop your ignorance and pretending like you know a country you have never been to.

If we want to play that game I can say Romania is a third world **** hole filled with pimps whores and illegal trafficking. Why don't I say these things or believe them? Because I listen more to what the television tells me to believe.

You had communism. We had the red scare, McCarthyism and it drove us to the edge of sanity before falling off.

Again.
[big]Faggot do you even potato?[big]
User avatar #561 to #556 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
You know, the whole "you had communism, we had red scare" thing would be funny if it wouldn't be outright sad.
So you say that it's just as bad to fear a regime that's far away from you than actually living in that regime, with basic civil rights and privacy actually being taken away from you. Nice logic, what can I say.

P.S.: Go ahead and say that my country is a **** hole filled with hookers, you'd be 90% correct, concerning the fact that most of the rural population is even more stupid than your hillbillies and just as bible humping. Just that we're a 2nd world country, not a third world.
User avatar #566 to #561 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
You have no idea what the red scare did to us. What its STILL doing to us. You can be free of your master but we will never be free of our fear. Our nation started becoming the thing it fought. You can be free of communism. But image an entire nation pushed to the point of paranoia? You got free. We never did.
User avatar #570 to #566 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Just what I said: you think that living in the fear of fear is bad? Try living in fear, period!

The effects of 50 years of communism on our society are obvious to anyone who takes a 2nd look at the large mentality difference between those over 40-50 years old and those who are younger, starting from simple things "how a man and woman should be and behave because that's what I was taught" to social politics and economics.
The fact that over 50% (in a poll made on a few thousand people sample) regret communism because "back then you had a job, a house and a decent life, with no prostitution or drugs or capitalist dirt", preferring those over freedom of speech, thought and free information mean anything to you? Do you realize how backwards some societies can be?
User avatar #572 to #570 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
But you got free. You got free. We may never be free.
User avatar #536 to #531 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
So that's a no. You have no idea what it is like here.

Also there is this thing called lying. Everyone does it.
User avatar #513 to #492 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
....Our country is easily influenced by a flag, cross, and hiding behind children as political tools. You don't know what its like here. '
To have an entire of nation of god fearing nazis on a witch hunt of logic and reason.
You aren't here man... You don't see what we do.

We did trust our government. They got us into a war with the middle east to protect our business interests, Vietnam, Cold War bull **** , Nixon. Go back farther, genocide of native Americans to protect rail road interests. After that abusive **** its hard to trust someone who beats you without a cooling off period.

Also they outgunned so many times before, American revolution and Texas Revolution. Both were won. Why? Because weapons change but war doesn't. Guerrilla warfare has worked extremely effectively against us everywhere we fight. Vietnam, Middle East. You name it we got a thorough ass kicking every step we took. So yes we can take on the us military.
Also just because the cards are stacked against us does that mean you should roll over and let them win? I don't think so.
#486 to #152 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Implying that you fat ******* Americans would ever "keep your government in check" with guns. Like any of your would look Obama in the face pointing a gun at him telling him not to do something your don't like.
Implying that guns are the reason why you people are still alive.
Implying you're safer in a country that has more people who misuse guns than use them 'properly'. Guns are used to KILL people; whether as murder or self-defence.
Just lose the ******* guns and learn how to defend yourself without a ******* weapon. Much easier to fight off a guy who doesn't have a gun than it is to defend yourself from one with a gun.
I dunno; if I were to make a law, I'd make it so that it was illegal to own a loaded gun without a license. Kind've like how you need a drivers license or ID for drinks/cigarettes; you'd have to be 25 or older to get the license to have possession of a loaded gun - but make it illegal to carry it in a public area (towns, schools etc). You were only to have it loaded in your property (house, car) for protection. If caught with a gun in a public area with or without a license, you'd be arrested for up 5 years or more.
I'd make it so that if you wanted to legitimately own a gun and load it you had to take gun-protection lessons that would train you to defend yourself without the gun; and if that didn't work you could resort to the gun. Spread awareness of how to actually fight use one to your benefit than to be some Die-Hard American who proclaims they've got ******* Hawkeye aim and who thinks it's easy to just kill someone when actually it takes a lot to pull the trigger and end a life. People could still own guns; just not allowed to carry it loaded. And you're only ever allowed it loaded (without a license) if it is in your home/property and used to protect yourself from an armed person who has come in threatening you. But that's just me I guess; I think you Americans need protecting from yourselves.
User avatar #521 to #486 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
^this, This and THIS!

"who thinks it's easy to just kill someone when actually it takes a lot to pull the trigger and end a life" - here's where you're mistaking: most probably Americans don't stop to ponder about ethical issues like this, hence the "BOOM FREEDOM ************ " mentality.
They LITERALLY don't think further than "Imma cap you, motherucker, don't push me".
#524 to #521 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Where are you from?
User avatar #530 to #524 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
In an EU country that has had its share of fascism during WW2, made most notorious by retarded peasants who thought that Orthodox religion and the cross is an excuse for whatever they commited, followed by half a century of enduring different forms of communism, culminating up to '89 with a regime that closely resembled the North Korean one.

So I may as well have a damn good idea about political regimes and the mentality that they impose on society.
User avatar #540 to #530 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
So how old are you?
User avatar #538 to #530 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Poland?
User avatar #541 to #538 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
No, Romania.

And bare in mind that we have been taught and educated since grade school about world geography and the like, meaning the fact that the average American student can't point on the map the US states, let alone realize that there are other countries outside the US.
I'm just saying through this that we have been brought up to bear in mind a larger perspective of things, since our country is rather insignificant on global affairs.
User avatar #544 to #541 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
How old are you?
User avatar #550 to #544 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
23, soon to be 24

Also bear in mind that in '89, when the communist regime was overthrown (albeit mostly directed both by America AND the reforming Russian forces led by Gorbachev -since Ceausescu was inconvenient to both sides-), the people had absolutely no firearms access to speak of.
HOWEVER back then the army sided with the people (actually there are tons of facts about the 89 Revolution, most important ones still unknown, such as "the terrorists" that everyone claimed as the source of firefights), but even so, up to 3000 lives were lost then, in all the chaos.
So, having a revolution (which unfortunately was eventually nothing more than a coup that simply used popular uprising) rather recently, maybe you can understand why the whole "yeah we're gonna fight the Government, **** yeah" is ludicrous and right out of a B-movie script.
User avatar #554 to #550 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
And hope that some bigger super power stops us?
User avatar #553 to #550 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
So... we shouldn't fight back?
User avatar #555 to #553 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Fact is YOU HAVE NO REASON TO FIGHT BACK. THAT is the whole damn point!

You're so called "loss of freedoms" is nothing more than a snotty kid attitude.

As for the "what if" idiot-type scenario... let me tell you a short morale-story from my country:
A man walks in his home one day, only to find his wife and mother-in-law weeping dreadfully and mourning over his baby's cradle. Expecting the worst, with blood-rushed away from his veins he approaches them and asks what had happened and what is wrong. The 2 women, difficult to understand from the sobbing, ask him if he sees the salt globe (replace with glass jar, if you will) on a shelf above the cradle. The man says "yes, well, what about it?!", at which the 2 women barely respond "well what if the salt globe fell and killed the child?"... This is what we particulary call "the salt globe thing". Meaning the creation of an irrational fear and awe of an event that is highly unlikely to happen and acting as if though it has already happened.

That's how stupid your whole "America is becoming fascist" thinking is.
User avatar #557 to #555 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
You said your self all we care about is god guns

Sopa, patriot act, national security letters. All violations of my rights as a citizen. Or did your media forget to mention laws that are so board in definition everyone is the enemy?
User avatar #563 to #557 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
SOPA let aside, how does everything else affect your life?

As long as the state/intelligence agencies don't use certain private information against you or those close to you (like the Securitate in Romania did by wiring all the phones, people living in complete phobia that their house was bugged so they couldn't speak what they were thinking not even in their privacy), I have nothing against a certain degree of filtering.
After all, you are the No.1 enemy in the eyes of many.
User avatar #571 to #563 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Well lets see here I can be tried in military court if I spoke out against the government, without fair trail, be arrested for anything deemed dangerous.

So I shouldn't be worried that my civil rights are now gone. Yeah. Totally not fascist. Its all necessary right? So long as I obey the laws and live the life they tell me to I have nothing to worry about? Who cares in Dave was arrested for protesting the war of terror and drugs. I'm safe and that is what matters right?

Maybe you should realize when I say about my own country that it is fascist I mean every word. Every post you made has been ignorant, ill informed, and prejudice
User avatar #558 to #557 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Guns, bible and flag. Sounds like Nazi Germany values to me.
User avatar #576 to #558 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Nazi Germany (or Nazi Italy, for that matter) did not use religion as a main "plot device" (unlike our notorious Iron Guard during WW2).
And stop eating so much ******** . Americans have humped their guns, bible and flag loooooong before Obama, Bush, or Clinton.
#579 to #576 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
The whole cornerstone of hitler's aryan ideal was that they were god's chosen people.
User avatar #578 to #576 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Nazi Italy.

Really
Just
Wtf ****** are you really this ******* stupid?

And Nazis used the bible to distance themselves from there enemies the communists. Just like we are.
User avatar #583 to #578 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
OK, FASCIST Italy, if you think the abbreviated term for "national-socialism" is not proper.
Both were based on hate and discrimination against an ethnic/religious/sexual minority.

And trust me, neither of them didn't hump religion as much as you say.
User avatar #587 to #583 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Really? And it was just an accident everyone religion at the time said was the enemy was the one in the gas chambers. Including gay people.
User avatar #590 to #587 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
The main reason was economical and social, not religious. Even a 10 year old can see that.
Germans were just jealous of the Jews holding lots of small business and having no place to develop their own. That was basically about it.
User avatar #592 to #590 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
It never is not even the crusades were truly about religion but makes excuses for it when it should stand against it.
User avatar #596 to #592 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Well, there is a difference between committing mass murders in the name of the Church/Cross and doing the same thing in the name of a ****** up political and social view.
Point-in-case: neither Germany nor Italy didn't actually use the Bible/religion as the main drive behind their causes.
User avatar #601 to #596 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
REALLY NOW?
Because you know, I think mass murder no matter the cause is wrong. Apparently there is a difference though. Please enlightenment me with more of your **** that turns out to be wrong.
User avatar #474 to #152 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Excellent point.

To those arguing that a rebel group can't take on the us army because they have tanks take a look to the middle east and back in history to Vietnam.

There is a reason guerrilla war existed today and works. We aren't going head on against the military. Like a good citizen we do what we always do when we can't win a head on fight. We wait then stab him while he sleeps.
User avatar #425 to #152 - rainbowrush ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
That's one of the stupidest **** I have ever heard.
#295 to #152 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
1. The hypocrisy of it all is that, according to the 2nd Amendment, Americans live in fear that the Government may become "tyrannical", yet in the same time they give it their utmost sign of trust, which is their vote.

2. The 2nd Amendment was written some 300 years ago, when a rag-tag militia COULD overthrow a corrupt Government (btw, it was written shortly after illegal rebels suddenly became legit after fighting and defeating Great Britain).
The popular conception that civilians would stand a chance against the (self-proclaimed, mind you) "most powerful armed forces in the world" is ludicrous, insane and retarded.
Honestly, if your Government suddenly wanted to become tyrannical, they'd have you at your pinky in a day. Let's not forget that if anything else fails, nukes (that the US still has plentiful) are always an option.

3. "So guns are a part of American life" - basically you're saying you're OK with a hillbilly lifestyle. Instead of solving a severe problem in your society, you're just willing to shrug it off and say "oh, we can't do that, it would be against the American spirit, hurr durr". MAN UP! Sometimes harsh decisions have to be made... and considering how educated most of Americans are (I don't think anybody can argue with that...), making them a bit more harmless is the smart thing to do.

4. "I believe we need guns that can, at some level, allow us to take on the military if we have to" - HELLO! REALITY CHECK! STOP LIVING IN HOLLYWOOD LAND!
As stated before, have fun defending yourself against a huge number of:
- Modern Battle Tanks
- Assault Helicopters
- Jet fighters and bombers
- Aircraft Carriers
- Submarines
- Cruisers and destroyers.

You wouldn't stand a chance, stop denying reality, it's bad for you

5. "Incrementally crippling the citizenry's ability to fight back is the slow road to tyranny". Wow. I feel so oppressed in the EU. Please, someone save us from the tyranny.
Once again, paranoia and mistrust rule your mind.
#559 to #295 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
90% of military/ law enforcement said they wouldn't fight civilians, good luck having 150k people fight 50 million gun owners.
User avatar #562 to #559 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
They wouldn't disobey a direct order coming from the highest authority? Oh really, now?
To what have you pledged for? A country's flag or it's population?
#565 to #562 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
ALL the highest ranking generals said they would give no such order. Military servicemen aren't going to open fire on their family because the president says so.
User avatar #577 to #565 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
And yet once again we're talking about a sci-fi scenario where the President decided to become despot and starts wavering orders around, like a suicidal maniac.
Seriously, I think you people just might be able on your "checks and balances" thing other than "we got gunz, hurr durr, be vewy afraid of us".
Once again, after all.. YOU VOTE FOR THEM!
#582 to #577 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Because a dictator has never rose to power in all of history. And you act like every american votes for these people they win by margins of 1-5%.
User avatar #586 to #582 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
You know who would have been a dictator? Someone like Rick Perry. Or, I dunno, Dave Mustaine (there are a lot of idiots out there who go "Mustaine for President".
Still, OnedoesnotsimplybecomeadictatorintheUS.jpg. Because REASONS.
#589 to #586 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Implying I support either of those. And again implying it couldn't ever happen, Russia just got a pseudo dictator what, 10 years ago?
User avatar #594 to #589 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Russians, unfortunately, would rather have their country become again at least a fraction of what the USSR was (gotta face it, Putin put Russia on the map again as an important player after the 90s) than be free of political oppression.
It was their CHOICE.
#597 to #594 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Really, considering there was outcry from Russia he was rigging the election. And they are forced to keep Putin, look at the last people to even verbally criticize him, ******* prison.
User avatar #599 to #597 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
I know.

But they chose that when the present-and-former prime minister was elected in his place, to break the "no more than 2 mandates in a row" rule.
I know about the electoral turmoil, but it's a thing that they brought upon themselves.
#602 to #599 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Again, Russia's government is so ****** up now, a election win means **** all when they pay people to stuff ballot boxes.
User avatar #605 to #602 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Heh, reminds me of my own country...

Or is it the other way around?...
#607 to #605 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Well, if it makes you feel any better my vote doesn't count for **** here either, being a independent blows.
User avatar #311 to #295 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Furthermore, America is the main pillar, almost the definition of CAPITALISM.
And the main objective of Capitalism is PROFIT!

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the US Government suddenly becoming tyrannical and oppressing its population would not be PROFITABLE, since the whole stock market, the national currency would go down the ******* .

Besides, it is much, MUCH easier to control a population that is dumbed down and is too lazy to think, let alone be encouraged in critical thinking.
Honestly, your educational system is FUBAR. I for one actually believe that examples like Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore are just representatives of the average Americans.

Proof for that? Look around you, more and more idiots believe that Obama SOMEHOW staged the recent shootings! SERIOUSLY?!
I mean, you're more willing to believe that your President staged some shootings (shootings also happened WAY before Obama was in office, mind you) than to credit the fact that it just might be possible that the Government allowed Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to happen?!
Yes, very good reasoning right there...
User avatar #509 to #311 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Capitalism? Wrong its high class socialism which is called crony capitalism. Control benefits the few and powerful. Want proof capitalism and fascism mix? Look at WW2 axis powers.

Secondly who ever said we would march up to the army head on? Ever heard of Guerrilla warfare? Its used to effectively attack a much larger foe. Its worked wonders against the US military everywhere we have gone.

Also should the fact the odds are against us in a civil war mean that we should surrender? I mean why should we have rebelled from Britain? In the beginning they had no chance. Same with my state who despite low taxes carries up the tax load of our states.

See how much your vote counts when one is offering freedom and the other high class slavery.

You seem to think in your mind that its impossible for our nation to become fascist when its one that road.
User avatar #514 to #509 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Oh, shut the **** up with the "America is becoming fascist" ******** 14 year-old logic.

You have absolutely no idea what fascism implies, yet you slur out these statements like you know how anything outside the US works.

Stop standing with your gaping mouth to what **** the media feeds you and start thinking with your own head for goddamn once!

Here you are, always thinking about how you could take an army head-on, thinking about conflict and war against the greedy, corrupt Government, which is basically the whole "taking it up to the Man" philosophy from the 70s.

Newsflash: You're not John McClaine, nor John Rambo. Stop living in the Hollywood dreamworld and take a sniff at reality. Frankly, it's mainly due to idiots like you that make me feel that it's a VERY good idea to take firearms away from civilians.

Currently co-existence, both between the Government and the people, AND between governments, is much more desirable.
User avatar #522 to #514 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
I read your whole argument...
And I got to say...
"Faggot do you even potato?"

That is the only response that makes any sense because you didn't even read my comment just that last line.

If you had read it you will realize I said "Guerrilla warfare" repeat
Guerrilla warfare
Which means, (Case you didn't know there is this thing called Google. Can help you find information fast) When your stronger enemy sleeps you steal his **** and slit his throat. Not charge in head on and die.

Fascism is described by Mussolini as a bonding of corporate and government powers in what he calls corporatism. Its a authoritarian right policy with nationalist and religious tenancies and controls the population through use of propaganda.

Yes I know what I'm talking about. Do you?
User avatar #526 to #522 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
"guerilla warfare" (implying I do not know what it means) is going to help on US soil.

Like I said, worst case scenario they wouldn't even need to have an armed conflict. They could just say "behave or we nuke your hillbilly asses".

And FASCISM is based on hated towards ethnic groups (if you're going to take anything that Mussolini said for granted... I have really bad news for you), above all else. How the **** does this cope with the American society?
User avatar #534 to #526 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
"Hillbilly asses" You assume they will nuke Texas? Yeah good luck we are one of the few states that has no trouble with its economy.

Also you really think they will nuke their own soil? And live with the consent reminder of what they did while the rest of the world cuts ties with America? Really? Its an empty threat.

Fascism has a few trends you can follow if you have a brain. Which you do not.

Want a racist fascist? Fine. Muslims, Arabs, atheists, and gays. Not enough for you?

Again
Faggot do you even potato?
User avatar #327 to #311 - tkfourtwoone (01/22/2013) [-]
Also, if you're gonna give the "well we should be able to defend ourselves if China or Russia ever invade us like we're still in the Cold War herp derp", let me remind you that we're living in the 21st century, when cybernetic and economical wars are being waged.

Honestly, if someone truly wanted America on its knees, they would target your power grids and power plants. Proof of this was in ~2004, when a powerful solar burst caused a major surge in your North grid, leaving NY in darkness for several days, at least.
#215 to #152 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
I couldn't agree with you more sir.

"when people fear the government there is tyranny, When the government fears the people, there is liberty"--someone important/smart
User avatar #177 to #152 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
That was beautiful.
User avatar #172 to #152 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
Im sorry but you just would be able to keep your government in check. Far too difficult. Your rifle isnt gonna do **** against their tanks, unless you wanna make tanks accessible for citizens. Parking would be a bitch i'll tell you that.
User avatar #290 to #172 - Zarke (01/22/2013) [-]
Are soldiers killing machines or people? If you are in the military, are you going to turn your arms on the people you swore to protect, or the people who want you to reverse your duties?
#240 to #172 - Uranium (01/22/2013) [-]
I can destroy an Abrams tank quite simply, well rather disable it and kill the entire crew. I'd make an IED out Dynamite (farmers use it to clear out stumps from fields) and ammonium nitrate (a common fertilizer and major component in almost all high explosive). I'll construct my IED using the dynamite as the blasting cap to detonate the ammonium nitrate, conceal it (probably with a construction barrel) Use a prepaid cell phone as my detonator. This won't destroy the tank outright or kill the crew but it should disable it by throwing a tread or whatever. I then walk up to it pour 5 gallons of gasoline down the air intake for the turbine and light a match destroying the turbine. If the crew survives the heat from the fire/concussion from the IED I'll light a fire beneath the tank or place another IED under it I could also replace the dynimite with a binary explosive compound such as tannerite and shoot it just so i could say I destroyed a tank with a rifle.
User avatar #361 to #240 - ilovehitler (01/22/2013) [-]
Well, you're uranium. Of course you can take out a tank if the situation is right.
User avatar #261 to #240 - billjoehappypurple (01/22/2013) [-]
taking out an Abrams tank would be a little more challenging than that.
#266 to #261 - Uranium (01/22/2013) [-]
Not really.
User avatar #317 to #266 - billjoehappypurple (01/22/2013) [-]
if they are so easy to destroy then why arent they destroyed more often?
#463 to #317 - Uranium (01/22/2013) [-]
I didn't say I would be able to destroy it, I said I'd be able to disable it and kill the crew. If you must know an instance very similar to what I just described did happen in Iraq. They made an IED out of 500 pound aerial bomb detonated it next to an Abrams it blew the treads off and flipped the tank on its top they walked up and set it on fire.
User avatar #245 to #240 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
Cool **** bro, great job !
#251 to #245 - Uranium (01/22/2013) [-]
Don't **** with someone who grew up in the country.
#260 to #251 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
The experience of the insurgents in Iraq proved it's hard to time a cellphone IED correctly. Never mind the fact that buying any combination ammonium nitrate, dynamite, and blasting caps will land on you ever domestic terrorism watch list there is.
The experience of the insurgents in Iraq proved it's hard to time a cellphone IED correctly. Never mind the fact that buying any combination ammonium nitrate, dynamite, and blasting caps will land on you ever domestic terrorism watch list there is.
#263 to #260 - Uranium (01/22/2013) [-]
Tannerite will function well enough and its very easy to get.
User avatar #254 to #251 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
I'll write that on a sticky note somewhere.
User avatar #197 to #172 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
1. Tanks are legal
2. What is Al Queda
User avatar #203 to #197 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
Wait what?
User avatar #207 to #203 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
Tanks are legal, and Al Queda/other insurgents have defeated every modern army that has invaded their country, despite being vastly outnumber, and outgunned. They're even less armed than the US civilians
User avatar #217 to #207 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
Just checked the gizoogle, and yeah you're right tanks are legal.

I did not know that. oh well
User avatar #218 to #217 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, and the guns on the tank are legal too. When's the last time you heard about someone going on a rampage with a tank?
#246 to #218 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
It has happened. A guy broke into a National Guard armory in San Diego and stole an M-60.
User avatar #248 to #246 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
The operative word here is STOLE.
User avatar #497 to #248 - atomschlumpf (01/22/2013) [-]
Yeah well, if he had his own tank he'd probably used that but not everybody can afford a tank just for ***** and giggles
User avatar #224 to #218 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
but the question still remains, why would you want to buy a tank?
User avatar #230 to #224 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
Why do you want a car that goes over 60? You're far more likely to kill someone by speeding than by using a tank. Some people just like having a tank because it's a ************* tank. And if you have the money, then I say go ahead.
User avatar #221 to #218 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
ay man if youre smart enough to buy a tank, you probably got your **** all figured out.
User avatar #226 to #221 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
That's what I'm saying. Just because you have something, doesn't mean you're going to do bad things with it.
User avatar #233 to #226 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
Im not gonna lie. The only reason i got into this argument because i have an essay i need to write im pushing back as far as i can. The whole weapon fiasco is one of those things i never really knew what side i to take.I've heard compelling arguments by both sides.
User avatar #239 to #233 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
The argument for anti-guns is well-meaning, but entirely stupid. The only thing that would have any immediate effect without ******* over law-abiding citizens is stronger background checks and mental health screenings. All this talk of banning "scary black guns" is retarded. Everything they want banned is stuff that has absolutely no effect on the lethality of a firearm. Hell I'd even be for a license to own a firearm if it got rid of all the waiting periods and restrictions.
User avatar #216 to #207 - wsxfat (01/22/2013) [-]
Idk man, im farting so much right now man. Its kinda scary.
User avatar #186 to #172 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
It's a lot easier to keep them in check with guns than with knives. We also don't want a militia stronger than the military so the 2nd amendment is pretty well thought out.
#178 to #172 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
You are correct. The disparity between the citizen and the government is far greater today that it was in 1776. However, are you proposing we just concede defeat and limit ourselves to BB-guns? If the government had it's way that's what they would do: uphold &quot;the letter&quot; of the 2nd Amendment, but completely disregard its spirit.    
   
I would like to have access to higher grade weaponry just-in-case. Just because I can't kill a tank with an &quot;assault rifle&quot; doesn't mean limiting access to them makes things better.
You are correct. The disparity between the citizen and the government is far greater today that it was in 1776. However, are you proposing we just concede defeat and limit ourselves to BB-guns? If the government had it's way that's what they would do: uphold "the letter" of the 2nd Amendment, but completely disregard its spirit.

I would like to have access to higher grade weaponry just-in-case. Just because I can't kill a tank with an "assault rifle" doesn't mean limiting access to them makes things better.
#192 to #178 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
I wouldn't worry too much about tanks. They cost so much to keep active that it almost isn't possible for our government to keep us under control with them. Without tax funding(not to mention the go-ahead from the rest of the world) our assault rifles would easily match us up with our military after only a few months at tops.
User avatar #475 to #192 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
Ever hear or look up how Nazi Germany was able to do all of its horrors? because the people did not know what its government was doing behind locked doors
User avatar #496 to #475 - atomschlumpf (01/22/2013) [-]
I call ******** . Many people knew or suspected what was going on, it was just not talked about

later, after the defeat of the third Reich it was just said that nobody knew what was going on to save their asses
User avatar #202 to #192 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
You forget the that the US military is the strongest in the world. The militia would not stand a single chance against our military. BUT that being said, the government would be a lot more hesitant to attack armed civilians.
#356 to #202 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
That's also assuming the entire military supports the government. Likely, there would be civil war even in the military itself.
User avatar #228 to #202 - Onemanretardpack ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
What is Al Queda?
#214 to #202 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
The U.S. government can only hold the title of strongest for a short time after it tries to subdue its citizens. Once the lack of tax dollars and the general retardation of how things are ran from D.C. hits everything goes downhill. Annnnd since our debt is already sky high it's unlikely that most countries would be willing to help them out giving them very limited supplies. It's pretty much a waiting game for the citizens and a race against time for them.
User avatar #236 to #214 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
Yes, exactly. That's how it works if people have guns. But think of how it would be like if people didn't have guns? Just a few soldiers could keep entire cities of people locked up and under control for a really good amount of time.
#243 to #236 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
Well yeah if we have no guns what so ever sure. I understand that much, but somehow I don't think all the gun toting loonies will stick around that long before they start shooting...especially if they try to take them from us like they'll have to when they illegalize them. That was one of the questions presented to them I believe.
User avatar #257 to #243 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
Maybe it's the way that you phrased it but I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean that the lunatics that still have guns after they're made illegal will start shooting before the government can hold down entire cities of people with just a few men?

Considering there are over 300 million people in the US and like 100 lunatics, that's a pretty sucky defense.
#259 to #257 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
I basically mean all the rednecks they'll try and take the guns from lol
User avatar #276 to #259 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
There is so much stereotyping and the use of the term "rednecks" used in these debates. The last two famous shooters weren't rednecks. I can't even remember seeing any incident with a redneck going on a shooting spree.
#225 to #214 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
Well to be fair during the Civil War things continued business as normal. One interesting idea presented in the John Titor story was that the US fell into civil war the rest of the world nuked it because they couldn't risk having a immensely nuclearly armed country in such an unstable state. Just an interesting idea to consider.
Well to be fair during the Civil War things continued business as normal. One interesting idea presented in the John Titor story was that the US fell into civil war the rest of the world nuked it because they couldn't risk having a immensely nuclearly armed country in such an unstable state. Just an interesting idea to consider.
#229 to #225 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
I like your thinking sir. Let's hope for this idea.
#196 to #192 - comstockload (01/22/2013) [-]
I hope you're right, but a couple of months translates to lots of dead citizens.   
   
(BTW: &lt;- This gun is still legal.)
I hope you're right, but a couple of months translates to lots of dead citizens.

(BTW: <- This gun is still legal.)
#198 to #196 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
True. But I don't think it would take a hell of a lot of time after that for the citizenry to win a war against this **** nation. Another key to the impending civil war will be how many of our soldiers will actually fire at those they were meant to protect and how many will join the side of the citizens.
#164 to #152 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
i'm calling serious ******** . back when the constitution was written, citizens and the government had the same amount of weaponry. Now, the government, if there were to be a hypothetical war, has much more weaponry than citizens could amass. How many predator drones do you have? How many nuclear submarines?

I think people should be allowed to defend themselves, but that point is ******** .
User avatar #467 to #164 - undeadwill (01/22/2013) [-]
They might use the drones but a submarine? What are they going to do? Nuke their own infrastructure?
#185 to #164 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
That's not necessarily true, the government would have had control of the warships, cannons, explosives and military grade weapons (there was a difference between military and civilian). The problem I have with arguments like yours is that what you're basically saying is that the military has bigger and better weaponry than civilians therefore any sort of fight against the government would be futile. That's not true, it would be difficult sure but not impossible.
#181 to #164 - nachomacho (01/22/2013) [-]
that is the entire point of the second amendment though
#157 to #152 - beefking (01/22/2013) [-]
**beefking rolled a random image posted in comment #19 at WTF Bronies **
#148 - forevertrombone (01/22/2013) [-]
Yeah. Guns need to be outlawed to keep them out of the hands of criminals! You know what else we should outlaw? Meth and cocaine because they're bad too. What? We did? But criminals still have them. What does that say about guns?
Yeah. Guns need to be outlawed to keep them out of the hands of criminals! You know what else we should outlaw? Meth and cocaine because they're bad too. What? We did? But criminals still have them. What does that say about guns?
#476 to #148 - ksvensson (01/22/2013) [-]
So your conclusion is that meth and cocaine should be legalized?
#348 to #148 - funnyjunknsfwsecti (01/22/2013) [-]
But it's much harder for both criminals and the standard man to get.
#173 to #148 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
It says that you can ******* make meth and cocaine. The average person wouldn't have the slightest clue as to how to build a gun. And don't even say "oh they could just buy it off the black market" because how many people really know how to buy things off the black market? And how is it going to get shipped? You can't hide a gun as well as you can hide a bag of cocaine. You know how many people Adam Lanza and James Holmes would have killed if they were using a bolt action rifle or a shotgun that hold 3-5 shells instead of a fully automatic one that holds 40 rounds? Not nearly as many as they did. Why wouldn't we at least try to reduce the amount of people that have assault rifles?
User avatar #200 to #173 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
Alright i'm reading through you're little paragraph here, you're welcome.

1. The average person wouldn't have the slightest clue as to HOW TO MAKE ******* METH AND COCAINE.
2. The amount of people that really know how to buy things off the black market hmmmm... I would guess the same amount of people that are dangerous to our society.
3. lol this ***** , how is it gonna get shipped? ******* ******** me? Like that's their biggest worry, the ************* shipping and handling.
4. People smuggle carloads of cocain into the US, you really think that guns will be that hard.
5. No I don't know how many people they would've killed if they were using a bolt action rifle or a shotgun and neither do you. You're so retarded what a great ******* point.
6. Not nearly as many as they did, yeah sure in an alternate universe they probably wouldve had years of sword training and slain the entire movie theater with a butter knife. You're so ******* terrible at coming up with good points.
7. We ******* have tried reducing the amount of people that have assault rifles. There are plenty of regulations on owning a gun. Why don't you take Australia for example, after they outlawed having a gun for reasons other than hunting, homicide and robbery rate increased.
#212 to #200 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
1. Then how do retards in trailer parks have meth labs? You can google that kind of **** .
2. It's not like you can just got to [url deleted] and ask to buy an assault rifle. And I'm sure it would be expensive as ****
3. You'd almost have to personally deliver them, which would lower the chances of getting them.
4. Cocaine is a little easier to hide than guns.
5. So you're saying a bolt action rifle wouldn't take more time to fire than a semi auto gun? You've obviously never shot a gun.
6. What the **** are you talking about?
7. So we just shouldn't even try to fix it?
User avatar #231 to #212 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
1. That just proves my point that any civilian can make a gun just like they can make meth.
2. yeah drugs aren't cheap either
3. Since it's not cheap, the person selling it to you would hire someone to transport it to you.
4. yes but if you can smuggle in a car full of cocaine, you can smuggle in a car full of anything else
5. I'm saying that you can't determine what would've happened if you changed his weapon because YOU JUST DON'T KNOW and therefore it's not a valid argument.
6. You said "not nearly as many as they did" as an answer to how many people would've died if the killers didn't have automatic weapons and I used the same argument you're using and told you a story of an alternate universe where changing the man's weapon to a knife resulted in him killing everyone in the theater.
7. Well hmmm... I've tried to keep my whole argument unbiased but you asked me for my opinion so here it is: I don't think that we should take guns away from people. You're just taking them away from the good guys, not the bad guys. Also, taking away stuff that people are used to just pisses them off. It would be best to let people keep their guns and the amount of bullets they want in it, but in return they have to show that they can properly use that gun and go through a mental health screening of some sort.
#253 to #231 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
1. Absolutely not. Making a substance is a little different than putting together a machine. You wouldn't be able to go to the store and buy a firing mechanism like you could buy an ingredient for meth,
2. I think guns might be a little bigger deal then drugs, so they'd be more expensive
3. Which would add to the cost.
4. I don't think it's as easy as that.
5. Ever heard of a mass shooting with a .22? Me neither, because it would be far less efficient.
6. I still don't understand. You honestly think him not using an assault rifle wouldn't result in less deaths?
7. I agree on hundred percent. If there isn't a gun ban I would love to see something like what you described. The only problem is figuring out how to prove you won't use the gun to murder.
User avatar #275 to #253 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
1. look up how to make a firing mechanism out of what you could buy? you kidding me?
2. think of the volume of a gun and then think of the equal amount in cocaine. Honestly I have no idea how much cocaine or an illegal gun would cost so I can't make this argument but neither can you yet you still try.
3. The cost would be included. getting the item to the costumer is part of what makes illegal substances so expensive.
4. Man think of a ******* box holding a bunch of guns, now think of the same ******* box full of cocaine. You're smuggling the same ******* box just filled with different stuff.
5. I am just completely baffled that you think that is a legitimate argument.
6. I'm saying you just don't know because it is a hypothetical situation. If he had a semi-automatic pistol then maybe he would've been more accurate with his shots and killed more people, you just don't know.
7. See now that's the thing that makes people despise guns so much and make completely retarded arguments about why guns should be banned. Sane people don't use the gun to murder, they use the gun as self defense and for sport. (You're sleeping in bed with your wife and you got 2 kids in the room next door and you hear a loud noise. You know that there is an intruder in your home. You grab your gun, find the intruder, and then you shoot him.) Yes you just killed a man in pretty much a heartbeat but was it really unfair? Would it have been more fair for you to go at it with this intruder with a knife or fists and risk him killing you and then your family?
#289 to #275 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
You have your beliefs and I have mine. I agree with some of what your saying about the way we go about who we sell guns to but I disagree with some of your points as well. There are obviously things I am uneducated about and that's why I'm on funnyjunk instead of being a part of congress. I will vote for what I think is right and you can do the same, that's about all we can do. I'm not going to keep this going any longer. There's no point. Good debate.
User avatar #293 to #289 - toosexyforyou (01/22/2013) [-]
Likewise but honestly my point throughout this whole thing is that you can't just make up a correlation between one thing and another. There has to be facts backing up reasoning.
#296 to #293 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
Agreed. There's no proof to show that a gun ban would be bad though either. People are always going to have different opinions on everything
#195 to #173 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Hey buddy, over half of the people in America who get arrested claim it's fairly easy for them to obtain firearms illegally i.e. stolen or purchased via black market. As for your smuggling argument, roughly 75% of the immigrants who try to cross the border actually get over and into the United States. If that many illegal people get into the country each year how many guns (which are much smaller than humans) do you think could get into the country?
#194 to #173 - drroxxo (01/22/2013) [-]
a gun isn't really that hard to make dude, sorry
#182 to #173 - nobleknight ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
He didn't have a fully automatic rifle. It was a semi automatic rifle.
#193 to #182 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
Adam Lanza did but they aren't sure if Holmes' were semi auto or not. Either way, a semi auto still shoots a hell of a lot faster than a bolt action. It only takes one bullet to kill, and they had 40 and could fire as fast as they wanted. Do you not see a problem with that?
#206 to #193 - nobleknight ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
And if the adult victims were allowed to have handguns then they could have shot the shooter and defended themselves. Outlawing guns just makes it easier for criminals to do what they want. Lets take Columbine for example. That shooting happened in a gun free town and what happened? So mentally unstable kids got a hold of guns and killed people. Washington D.C. No guns allowed yet gun violence still happens. Why punish people who have never broken the law for what the criminals do?
#220 to #206 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
It's just my belief that we should try to eliminate as many guns as possible because I think that's better than doing nothing, if you don't see it that way then that's your opinion.
#235 to #220 - nobleknight ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
I see your point but removing our ability to defend ourselves won't solve anything. Upping the punishment for those who use a firearm to break the law would be more effective. Having law abiding citizens have guns to protect themselves will make criminals think before committing said crime. For example, let's say I'm a criminal and I see a person walking down the street, I want to rob him. Since guns are outlawed I know he's unarmed so I have no fear. I rob him. Now what if guns were okay to have? Same situation, I want to rob him, wait, he may have a gun on him, better not risk it. I can list more scenarios but you get the gist.

tl;dr See the argument from the other point of view before speaking. (no insult intended)
#268 to #235 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
That's the best argument I've heard. I just think that somebody crazy enough to kill dozens of people isn't exactly worried about punishment. But I understand your point about the robbing thing. I think that if there isn't a total ban there definitely needs to be a better way to determine who we sell guns to.
#278 to #268 - nobleknight ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
Well the punishment idea goes more toward petty criminals not the psycho killers. Think of it this way. I walk into a room with 10 people inside and pull a gun and open fire, they will die before police arrive. Why? Nobody has a gun to stop me. Same scenario but 3 people have guns. I pull out my gun and open fire but those 3 people pull out their guns and shoot me down. Albeit some people may be dead or wounded but I was stopped from killing them all. It's bad that I shot up the place but I was stopped before I killed them all. How was I stopped? With a gun, not some paragraph on a piece of paper with a fancy signature.
#294 to #278 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
Yes I understand that and to a point I agree, but how are we to trust those 3 with guns? They could end up being psycho killers too.
#297 to #294 - nobleknight ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
With that logic we shoot wiretap everyone's phones cause they might be terrorists. Actually why do that? Lets put everyone in jail cause they all might be criminals! Also lets take away all cars cause people might run over someone else! etc etc etc...
#304 to #297 - mymcmuffin (01/22/2013) [-]
Valid point. I guess I'm just not a very trusting person.
#307 to #304 - nobleknight ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
Neither am I, but you have to mix morals and logic so we can reach the best possible outcome. Pure logic might be most effective but morally wrong likewise when it's reversed. Balanced is the way to go.
#169 to #148 - BERTMGERT (01/22/2013) [-]
You can't cook up a batch of AK-47
#156 to #148 - moxmortuus (01/22/2013) [-]
You sound like a terrorist.
#154 to #148 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure you just made an argument to legalize coke and meth.
#174 to #154 - noschool ONLINE (01/22/2013) [-]
you could use that argument to legalize anything, "Lets make it illegal for people to (insert crime), what there are people that do it anyway? well i guess there is no point in making a law if there are people that are going to do it anyway."
#142 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/22/2013) [-]
Then why bother making anything illegal? Hell, they can just get that **** from the black market.
I wanna buy my nuclear bomb already, it's my right as a free american.
#123 - nadastress (01/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
 Friends (0)