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.
User avatar #803 - theluppijackal ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
That's not how ******* executive order was meant to work you two bit piece of **** president.
User avatar #786 - catsareforcancer (01/25/2013) [-]
Hitler himself didn't attack gun rights. The previous government before the National Socialists took the helm actually took away the rights to arms to take away the firepower that Communists and other such men wielded within the country, the National Socialists(Nazis) included.
#778 - StarvedSouthKorean (01/25/2013) [-]
Only real difference, Hitler worked against the banks sucking Germany dry. Obama WORKS FOR the SAME banks sucking America dry. Ultra rich getting richer, normal everyday people getting poorer.
#865 to #778 - StarvedSouthKorean (01/25/2013) [-]
I'n sorry what country have you been living in?
User avatar #802 to #778 - datgermanguy (01/25/2013) [-]
I think Hitler just worked against the banks because they were run by a certain kind of people...
#769 - infinitereaper (01/25/2013) [-]
There is a Hitler inside all of us.
#768 - ludislavonac (01/25/2013) [-]
I don't give a **** about stupid america and your stupid gun laws, stop posting this crap and give me some funny
brace for red thumbs
#764 - MikeyA (01/25/2013) [-]
******* gonna nig.
0
#760 - spanishninja has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #750 - konradkurze ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
right,,,regulate, is that what you clal it

it'll just turn the system into such a lawyer state that you'll pretty much need to fill out 20 forms just to be allowed a 9mm pistol and most of said paperwork will be legalese for if you do anything the system doesnt like, you give them full right to seize said 9mm and ban you from guns for a time

the so-called 'shootings' that have occurred in recent months have just been fake scare tactics to push people towards tightening up on guns
User avatar #787 to #750 - newsmyrna ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Yea I could just see that CIA meeting "well gentlemen we just shot up a movie theater and a mall within a month of each other it doesn't seem to be working we're gonna have to go balls deep into this and go full elementary school. That'll really rile the masses." Are you ******* serious you're an ass.
User avatar #794 to #787 - konradkurze ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
just keep up that forcefield of denial, it will really help you shrug off how bad the world is

ignorance is bliss,,,and youre one hella peaceful ************
#771 to #750 - ikilledska (01/25/2013) [-]
Yup, and the government was behind 9/11 and leprechauns exist.

U so smart.
#798 to #771 - StarvedSouthKorean (01/25/2013) [-]
'Murica in a nutshell
#785 to #771 - konradkurze ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
This image has expired
you make my brain burn

yep, the government is so totally perfect and would never NEVER lie to the people to push them towards where the system wants them....and the government cares about the needs of the people, and always ha their best interests in mind
thats logic according to you
User avatar #911 to #785 - ikilledska (01/26/2013) [-]
Nice self portrait, you should probably get that checked out.

And it would be cool to have a debate with you if I could even read whatever you're trying to say. But alas, it is next to chicken scratch.

But, you may keep believing that the government hates its citizens and wants them all to be prisoners in their environment. You're right, it's only "logical"

*snicker*
User avatar #914 to #911 - konradkurze ONLINE (01/27/2013) [-]
theres no real difference between the us government trying to convince the people that guns are bad, by staging a number of fake shootings to scare people into supporting gun control, than there was adolf hitler convincing germany that all jews were bad by pointing at a few rich jews and saying theyre all capitalists

it may have taken a decade for the nazi party to get enough public support to ship all jews off to camps, its entirely plausible that given how the media can be manipulated today, usa can get gun control working in less than that
User avatar #747 - mrkanyeeast (01/25/2013) [-]
If Hitler changed his name to Obama, or Obama changed his name to Hitler, they'd have the same name. Coincidence?
User avatar #745 - kandazz (01/25/2013) [-]
DON'T. ******* . CARE.
User avatar #742 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
Don't you dare bitch about not being allowed to have a 200 round "clip" fully automatic gun in your back yard.

That's a ******* death machine that it's only logical use would be mass murder.

In england I'm not even allowed a pair of wolverine style hand claws because our weapon laws are so strict.
#749 to #742 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
That's nice, but over here we have something called civil liberties. They aren't banning 200 round clip fully automatics. They are banning 30-round clip semi-automatics. They are necessary to maintain our civil liberties.
User avatar #766 to #749 - tkfourtwoone (01/25/2013) [-]
And with all due honesty, you can live very well without your "civic liberty" to carry a firearm. You're welcome.
#782 to #766 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
They're called civil liberties.
User avatar #754 to #749 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
The second amendment was written over 200 years ago when the write to bear arms was an axe, a sword or one of these babies, I don't think Thomas Jefferson was thinking about a gun putting out at the rates they do now, that's just ******* dangerous.
#756 to #754 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
Forgot the pic

>One of these babies.
User avatar #805 to #756 - theluppijackal ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin
#765 to #756 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
~ (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
~ Patrick Henry

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
~ (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
User avatar #780 to #765 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
No free man shall ever be debarred the right to bear arms.

You're right, and if you say that all the millions of guns that you're still allowed to fire arn't "arms" there's somthing seriously wrong.
User avatar #821 to #780 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
By banning a weapon such as the AR15, you are effectively denying my right to arms. The amendment covers ALL arms.
User avatar #875 to #821 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
The amendment was written not taking the AR15 into account.

Where would you draw the line? - By banning my ownership of a nuclear warhead you're denying my right to bare arms.
User avatar #883 to #875 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
The Amendments are great because they were worded with the intent of being applicable regardless of how long ago they were written. That's why they're rather vague. By writing "arms" the founders left the Amendment open to support future weapons. They knew the technology and times would change. If you think about it, the were even anticipating a time where our weaponry moves beyond "firearms." So in this regard, the founders intended for the people to arm themselves with whatever the government was using.

Therefore, If you wanted to be perfectly adherent to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, the people should be allowed to own the equivalent to anything the military uses.

But most of us are reasonable and don't find it necessary to take things to that extent.
The line is draw before the point where the people are no longer a threat to their government (in hypothetical terms). The proposed banning of our most common rifles is unacceptable for this reason.

Here's a purely hypothetical thought:

Theoretically you COULD allow people to own whatever they wanted. Most still wouldn't be able to due to technological, logistic, and financial limitations. And anyone who could actually afford an abrams (for example) wouldn't be using it to rob 7-11 or engage in gang wars. This is the same concept why miniguns are not illegal to own. It's an interesting thought at the least.
#781 to #780 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
What's seriously wrong is that you think that's enough to satisfy the founding fathers' intentions for us to have arms.
User avatar #783 to #781 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes!

Yes I ******* do, I think the founding fathers were thinking about swords and slow as **** beyonets, not every american being armed with somthing that could mow down half a shopping mall before the clip is emptied.
#790 to #783 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
I already answered that, but apparently you don't care about the constitution because you're from ENGLAND! Haha, you're the ones who tried to round up our guns in the first place so you could exercise control. Now, you're jumping into our business as if this even affects you? Gtfo
User avatar #792 to #790 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, that was actually me personally, I was littarally the one walking around america taking your guns off you.

That was actually me, the one and only, yes, I am 100s of years old.
User avatar #784 to #783 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
Don't get me wrong, if you wanna carry a some kinda pistol go ahead, that is the situation to bring up your second amendment rights, but you do not need a ******* AK-47.
#791 to #784 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
Come over and take it.
User avatar #795 to #791 - mycatislookingatme (01/25/2013) [-]
Your government are doing a perfectly fine job of that themselves.
#796 to #795 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
You bastard!
#740 - claytonic (01/25/2013) [-]
LOOK HE'S BREATHING OXYGEN HITTLER BREATHED OXYGEN
#738 - Blackdrama (01/25/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#733 - whitehandmaster (01/25/2013) [-]
**** most Americans are so ******* dumb i mean anything liberal that Obama does is considered communism and that he is the next Hitler. Go read a book on government you will find many place are doing are doing far more liberal things like free health care and schooling all the way through university.
#732 - StarvedSouthKorean (01/25/2013) [-]
not to be a jerk but they are literally banning perfectly legal hunting guns that look similar ... i mean similiar to asualt weapons that means that you have to have wood stocks instead of composite plastic stocks.... because lets make guns that are made out of lighter, cheaper material illegal because this .22 looks like its like more dangerous then this .22 ... fyi a percectly harmless looking .357 (lol) will still blow a bigger hole in you and doesnt need the stock. but yea you make great sense... its all bs, if you examine the current facts youll find that the very people who they say are a danger to everyone already have the guns... its illegal for any criminal to own firearms.... guess who has the full autos? (which carry a federal minimum sentance) the ******* criminals who arent supposed to have any guys someone should tell these idiots that concealed carry states have a lower rate of crime... because your not gonna mug the guy because your not big time enough to get fully autos or guns illegally and that ******** might have a .50 cal and guess what ??? AK47s the opitime of ******* terrorist assualt riffles has a wood stock... which they arent citing as dangerous. they dont care about crime realisitically what they do care about in these times is keeping the mass of population unarmed to prevent us calling them on the ******** they spew. because people are more likely to band together succesfully when able to defend themselves properly and fairly.... everyone backs down to 10000 soldiers armed to the teeth when the most dangerous person on the side they stand has a bat. give everyone the right to fair fight and people are more likely to feel comfortably with voicing the true opinion. we live in a society where our goverment has alienated most people so much that we all feel as if our voice wont be heard and our vote wont count so why bother when a million other problems that can be fixed exist in front of you.
User avatar #718 - theshadowed (01/25/2013) [-]
The amount of people spouting philosophical **** because they want to keep their precious gun is amazing
User avatar #880 to #752 - theshadowed (01/25/2013) [-]
Dafuq do I know, I'm not a philosopher
#716 - DeeJayBee (01/25/2013) [-]
what rank is he so he can be confirmed as a child soldier?
User avatar #722 to #716 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
army and sargent.
#706 - StarvedSouthKorean (01/25/2013) [-]
What happened to all your punctuation?
 Friends (0)