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.
#885 - worldofwarcraftdog (01/25/2013) [-]
Darn, dont you hate it how obama has the power to do anything he wants?, i wish there was a group of elected individuals that could considerably represent the interest of the majority of Americans based on the verbatim of a legal documant that represents our construct of goverment........not that they do a good job of it all the time......but obama isnt the only ******* guy out to interpret the 2nd admendment differently.
#931 to #885 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/29/2013) [-]
Good Idea! Now if we could only get them to follow it.
#857 - kingcubjr (01/25/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#845 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
Hitler didnt take away peoples guns. he took the guns aways from the people he didn't like ( aka jews, other minority and protester) this is something most countries in the world does today it called policing . where as most countries do not target a n ethnic grouping like hitler did most countries do take the guns away from people they find undesirable to be armed , criminals, tourists, (in england) gun safety violators.
that comparing the Hitler the NRA propaganda compaign which when you look through history is just not true .
#851 to #845 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
Hitler didnt take away peoples guns. he took the guns aways from the people he didn't like

Wait...that must mean...Obama dislikes EVERYBODY.

Dear god.jpg
0
#841 - ieatbengay has deleted their comment [-]
0
#843 to #841 - ieatbengay has deleted their comment [-]
-6
#836 - amateriandarknut has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #844 to #836 - anonymoose ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
You do know, just because 2 people do a few things that are similar doesn't mean they have the same ideas.

Should we all keep an eye on people with 1 testicle just in case that's the trigger for mass genocide?
User avatar #839 to #836 - pandation ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Do you know the purpose of the 2nd amendment? Relate it back to the time and context it was created. When the founding fathers created the second amendment, they wanted American citizens to have a way to defend themselves from the government if it became a tyrannical force like the one they just escaped from. Hitler during WWII banned guns in Germany and by disarming the citizens, the tyrannical nazi party easily took over. That's exactly what's so similar in these circumstances and the dinner party was a joke, get an education.
User avatar #852 to #839 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
I really don't know how to reply to your comment in its entirety because you're basically stating what I already know and then saying the post was a joke.
But what I can say is, considering how stupidly naive I've seen people be, I would actually expect someone to mean this kind of thing seriously. Which is why I took it that way.
User avatar #860 to #852 - pandation ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Sounds like a personal problem. I don't let the reactions of others effect my sense of humor
User avatar #876 to #860 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
Er, well, I think my mistake was being so exposed to stupid that I actually thought the post was some more of the same dumb logic. It's not that I let others affect my humor, it's just that I've seen people that dumb. But yes, it was my error.
User avatar #853 to #852 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
I mean, I actually thought the person who made the post was serious. I didn't exactly clarify that.
#835 - dingbox (01/25/2013) [-]
wtf...ties? they both has ties? that's it, i'm voting Ron Paul!
User avatar #827 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
The thing is, most of the weapons they want to ban are rarely involved in any gun crime at all. There are millions of people who own AR15s alone and yet the number of murders per year with ANY rifle is in the hundreds.

Also, the proposed ban targets a number of pistols and shotguns. Apparently those are "assault weapons" too.

But the politicians don't care because it's never been about saving lives. It's all about control. Otherwise these politicians would be working to keep criminals from obtaining weapons, enforcing existing gun laws, and reforming mental health.

But they won't, because as Senator Feinstein admitted, it's about "drying up the supply."
#863 to #827 - sodapops (01/25/2013) [-]
I've wanted to ask this for the longest time: In how many school shootings or massacres in the USA have assault rifles ACTUALLY been used? The latest I could find was in the eighties (Though I guess there are lots of gang wars and such we never get to hear about here). It's like here in Sweden, every time some psycho murders somebody with a rickety handgun smuggled in from Russia, the hunters, weapon collectors and competetive shooters gets ******* slammed.
User avatar #864 to #863 - sodapops (01/25/2013) [-]
Oh... Just found a link on wikipedia I had missed before. Apparently assault rifles are something completely different from assault weapons. What I can see assault weapon could mean any and all semi-automatic weapons depending on state. Guess I own 2 assault weapons, I NEVER KNEW!

Anyway, in my post up there I meant selective-fire REAL assault rifles.
User avatar #881 to #864 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, the whole "assault weapons" term doesn't mean anything to anyone who actually involves themselves with guns. It's a term used by anti gun people.

The thing I hate about it is how easily people mistake "assault weapon" to mean some sort of automatic military hardware. It makes people more likely to go along with these gun bans because they think they're banning machinguns and assault rifles (which are already banned).

It's all about deception. An AR15, or any other "assault weapon" is not functionally different than any other semi auto rifle.
User avatar #830 to #827 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
The idea is to start with weapons that "aren't necessary". The more they take away weapons like that, the more comfortable people are with it, until it gets all the way down to no weapons. That's the reason any infringement isn't a good idea period.
User avatar #882 to #830 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
It's scary isn't it? They're manipulating people's tendencies to focus on the moment and decide via emotion.

If they pass this they'll wait a decade or so until people are used to it. Then they'll move on to ALL semi auto weapons (for example) using the SAME reasons they use today. Then they'll wait a bit and move onto the rest until the people no longer have any weapons.

They claim that they don't want to take our guns, but it's the end result of what they're trying to do and they know it.
User avatar #858 to #830 - techketzer (01/25/2013) [-]
Your arms aren't necessary for you to live either.
How about we take those?
User avatar #871 to #858 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
I don't think you quite understand.
I put the phrase "aren't necessary" in quotes. As in I'm not the one that decided they weren't necessary. It's liberals that believe that certain guns aren't necessary, not me. I don't think the government has any grounds to take weapons just because they deem it not necessary for civilians.
User avatar #873 to #871 - techketzer (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, I misunderstood you.
Apologies.
User avatar #874 to #873 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
It's no problem. I was just clarifying. I can kind of see it.
I actually thought the main content was serious until someone corrected me.
0
#870 to #858 - amateriandarknut has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #855 to #830 - teufelshunde (01/25/2013) [-]
Aren't necessary? When did my unalienable human rights become only applicable "when necessary"?
User avatar #869 to #855 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
That's exactly my point, and exactly why it's in quotation marks. I was making the point that that's where they start, by taking weapons that government decides you don't need.
User avatar #872 to #869 - techketzer (01/25/2013) [-]
I see I completely misread your comment.
Please disregard mine (#858) and have your thumb back. :)
+1
#826 - jeffthepony **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#820 - pawntrawn (01/25/2013) [-]
>"The 2nd amendment is outdated because it was made 200 years ago when muskets couldn't hurt anyone"
>Not knowing why the 2nd amendment was made
It's the same as why they made the 3rd amendment: The British forced people to give up their guns prior to the Revolutionary War, so the writers of the Bill of Rights tried to make a way for that not to happen again.

>"But the Americans only had one-shot muskets back then"
Well so did the British army, so they were about even in firepower.
Nowadays citizens have semi-automatic and automatic weapons, as does the military, although the military does have better training.

TL;DR: 2nd amendment was made to hinder, if not stop, a dictator from imposing military control over the nation. It wasn't made just so people could show off their arsenals.

Solution? Don't take away everyone's guns, just regulate the process of how to get a gun so people like those media-attracting shooters don't get any.

>"Drugs are illegal but people still get them"
So we should just do nothing and let them be with no regulations then? No.


P.S. The NRA and most super-liberals are ******* stupid.
#825 to #820 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
200 years ago the americans didn't have a regulated army or a great war economy
the amendent mentions a militia .
its basicly so the brits couldn't take away their armies guns .

what is stopping me from getting a main battle tank ? gotta even out the playing field.

america has a big enough army to fend for itself now .
#859 to #825 - teufelshunde (01/25/2013) [-]
No, just no. No no no.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A militia defines two things. Either an armed citizenry, or the national guard. Yes, the Americans DID have a regulated army back then. No, it doesn't say that the British couldn't confiscate their firearms, that has nothing to do with it. Look closer..
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The People are the citizens of the United States. A tank is a vehicle, not a firearm. The 2A applies to firearms. Does this entitle us to modern day M177 Howitzers? No. But it does entitle us to an AR15 if we want one.
User avatar #838 to #825 - pawntrawn (01/25/2013) [-]
The first half of the 2nd amendment does not necessarily pertain to a federal militia, it more of states rules about state militias. Each state is allowed to create and maintain their own militia, which is what the national guard is sort of like.

>america has a big enough army to fend for itself now .
You're misunderstanding, the second amendment wasn't written only for foreign invasions, it was so that the American government could not turn on its citizens and create a totalitarian regime like the monarchy England had in place by taking away their arms.
#846 to #838 - itsbendingtime (01/25/2013) [-]
>totalitarian regime
>like in England
>implying the UK wasn't, and still is, a constitutional monarchy with an elected Parliament
User avatar #849 to #846 - pawntrawn (01/25/2013) [-]
>Monarch with parliament
>Dictator with supporters
You know what I mean.
#867 to #849 - itsbendingtime (01/25/2013) [-]
>implying the Queen is a dictator
User avatar #828 to #825 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
The colonists didn't have an army until AFTER the British came for the guns. When that happened, the militia were a group of citizens who got together to form an ad hoc army.

The amendment is meant to assure that this scenario can happen again if needed. It is supposed to protect against ALL governments, both foreign and domestic.

You should get a battle tank if you want one. Anyone who could buy one isn't going to be robbing 7-11 or murdering people.
#824 to #820 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
No, you should tax and control drugs the same way you do guns. Then when most of the illegal guns and drugs are gone because they're simply not profitable anymore, you send the cops after the people that still sell illegally for "off-the-radar" type reasons.

Simple, right?
User avatar #842 to #824 - pawntrawn (01/25/2013) [-]
Drug licenses? That seems a bit stretching it.
It's not the guns that are expensive necessarily, it's the licenses needed to own them.
If someone wanted to buy a machine gun illegally, they would still buy it off a black market, not because it's cheaper, but because they don't need to receive a license to purchase it.
0
#819 - heathz has deleted their comment [-]
#817 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
Obama breathes air just like Hitler did! Wake Up!
User avatar #815 - PubLandlord (01/25/2013) [-]
surprisingly the rest of the world doesn't care
#814 - brainstormer (01/25/2013) [-]
Statistically, 9/11 of Governments want to disarm their people.
#886 to #814 - worldofwarcraftdog (01/25/2013) [-]
holy **** hes right!

he didnt kill dumbledore!!!
#812 - felixjarl ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
This image has expired
We all know this is ******** , he is in fact a alien with gravitation powers.
User avatar #810 - sommerli (01/25/2013) [-]
i drink milk daily, i think im turning into ABB
User avatar #809 - debee (01/25/2013) [-]
Obama - Hitler = 4 and 4 - 2 = 3

HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED GUISE 1
#808 - Kellanved (01/25/2013) [-]
I already know what the comment section looks like before I even look, so I'm just going to move on.
User avatar #831 to #808 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
And yet you reply anyways.
#806 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
**** .its the opposite day. ******* are going to enslave us.
#804 - terrorrizor (01/25/2013) [-]
>implying most of the people here are even old enough to vote or even care
#837 to #804 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
If you're too young to even care you really shouldn't be here, if you think "I can't vote so why should I care?" I pitty you.
#847 to #837 - terrorrizor (01/25/2013) [-]
Personally I'm not like that, but really? If you're too young to care about politics you shouldn't be on what's supposed to be a joke website?
#856 to #847 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/25/2013) [-]
It means you should care, if you don't then your too young to understand, if you're that young then you shouldn't be allowed on funnyjunk because the jokes told here are too inappropriate for your age group.
 Friends (0)