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:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #705 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
the government isnt trying to take your guns. mearly to regulate them so you dont have fully automatic 200clip machine guns. also there is a strong possibility of a stand alone complex emerging.
#779 to #705 - bigjae (01/25/2013) [-]
sorry to inform you but we dont have 200rd mag fully auto machine guns. what there trying to ban is so called assault rifles which are only avaliable to civillians as semi-auto one trigger pull for one shot the trigger needs to be reset each time to allow another round to be fired and what makes them "assualt weapons" are for the most part purely cosmetic features like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, mounting rails for accessores and i have never seen a single 200rd mag for any civiallian gun they do have 100rd clips which i too see no practical purpose in. and yes im well aware i cant spell or punctuate correctly
User avatar #898 to #779 - TheFixer (01/26/2013) [-]
yes we do have 200rd mag fully auto machine guns. perhapse youve heard of some of them i know browning made a machine gun that could hold that kind of ammo. theres a think called a box mag and that holds ~200 rounds in it. so why not ban the cosmetics then and have it be a regular rifle?
#916 to #898 - bigjae (01/27/2013) [-]
yes there are such weapons like that in the military. Which are not available to civilians. without a FFL license which i dont know what all it takes to get one
User avatar #917 to #916 - TheFixer (01/27/2013) [-]
you would probably need to pass some mental health tests, and prove that you know how to use it by taking a certain amount of courses.
#926 to #917 - bigjae (01/29/2013) [-]
that wouldnt surprise me. but i know you need to pass an FBI background check
#744 to #705 - devout feminist (01/25/2013) [-]
You will never take my LSAT Extended mags.
User avatar #748 to #744 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
hey ill grant you the 200mag as long as i get the same. thats my way of looking at it. if everyone has a gun then crime would go way down because currently not many people carry a gun and those that do its not often loaded see laws apply to law abiding citizens not to criminals. so if everyone had a gun and was trained to use the gun and was allowed to carry it loaded then the criminals wouldnt try **** because they know they would get shot.
User avatar #767 to #748 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
"If I have a gun and you have a gun, there will be peace and understanding"

...sorry to break your balls, but that kind of logic lead to the Cold War...
User avatar #897 to #767 - TheFixer (01/26/2013) [-]
no... that would be i have an arsenal of nukes and you have an arsenal of nukes lets stare at eachother and see what happens.
#711 to #705 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
No, the regulation is against semi-automatic weapons, 10-round clips, and hand grips. Please, get your facts right before they use you like a tool to tighten the clamps on our civil liberties.
User avatar #719 to #711 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
the limiting of the ammo is actually against our constitution or something so they cant legally do that if the abide by their own rules. furthermore i appear to be the only one troubled by the amount of violence that has occured in the 1st month of this new year. 3 - 5 school shooting with the most recent having no actual suspect. something is going on and if im right we are looking at the first recorded stand alone complex. especially with the most recent one.
#725 to #719 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
I haven't heard about those shootings, but I think something's up. I'm not sure what it is, but I just know a gun ban is not the way to go.
I hope they abide by the rules, but ultimately, the only rules are the ones we make ourselves.
What do you mean, "stand alone complex?"
User avatar #730 to #725 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
a stand alone complex its basically a copy cat crime with no TRUE originator of the copied action. like heres an example say a fire starts and its your ordinary garden variety accident. get the right people thinking it was arson suddenly arson crimes are on the rise. a stand alone complex originates usually when the incident is political or religious in nature or if there is intense media attention to said incident. so basically get the right people watching the news with this most recent shooting that has no culprit and the school shooting will continue. it is my belief that the governments of the world or rather the rich that control the governments know this and wishes it to occur to justify their ends. i know i sound insane but it all fits...
#737 to #730 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
That's not crazy, but one thing is for sure, no matter what caused the shootings, they are being used to try to ban guns, and that's not the solution either way.
User avatar #712 to #711 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
oh the semi auto thing yeah that will never pass. or am i a day behind again... also they cant use me i hate them.
#721 to #712 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
They aren't banning all semi-autos, just a list of them (for starters). I wish I could say it wouldn't pass, but what I'm seeing on the media lately, coupled with recent events, and Obama's influence over people, worries me.
User avatar #724 to #721 - TheFixer (01/25/2013) [-]
it wont pass it violates something in the second amendment if i recall correctly. there is provisions in there to prevent semi autos from banning. the most they can do is make it harder to aquire one. the second they over step that we as a people will have to act because it will follow the same route as hitlers germany. he took the guns then he took over.
User avatar #693 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
The post is stupid but the 12 year old has a point (not the hitler one) about obama using children to rile up sympathy rather than making a valid argument. He criticized the bush magical fairy princessistrations use of executive orders and said they used them too much and then he now goes around using executive orders to sidestep congress to pass bills he knows nobody in their right mind would vote for.
#681 - abstract ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
User avatar #666 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Anyone who doesn't take the top panel seriously is a fool. Will we learn from the past this time?
User avatar #789 to #666 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Continuing here ebcause the thread got too long.

Seriously though, there has to be some kind of plan involved.
I mean are they just planning to ban weapons that can do serious damage, leaving the people with handguns/shotguns/rifles?

Cause I don't think people need to keep uzi's or ak-47's around.

Also I don't know much about gun types, feel free to crrect me if I got soemthing wrong.
#799 to #789 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
An m4 and an ak47 are just rifles. Now it get's kind of dangerous when there are fully automatic rifles, which is why you need special permits to own them. Handguns are arguably more dangerous than any rifle or shotgun. Stats. Here in America, we see guns as guns with little concern about what kind they are, and we believe if we can use them responsibly, then we should be able to own them. Even if it means proving it by having no criminal record and going through all the trouble and taxes to get a permit for an automatic weapon.

I believe that the liberals of America, or just a part of them, trust the government more than the citizens to own weapons and that some day they should be illegal.

Hey man, it's 2:00am in the morning where I am at, we can continue this tomarrow if you'd like. I'm very tired see ya.

PS: No I'm not ditching you because it's a boring conversation. I enjoy deep conversation. Until next time.
User avatar #800 to #799 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
K cya. As an afterthought, I just think it's useful to make a distinction between weapons that can be used for protection, e.g. to threaten a burglar, and weapons that are designed to efficiently end as many lives as possible.
User avatar #920 to #800 - doodogger (01/28/2013) [-]
So called "assault rifles" are not made to end as many lives as possible, machine guns aren't even made to do that. An "assault rifle" is just a modern rifle fit for the modern man. Machine guns are intended for cover fire and not necessarily to kill. Weapons are are meant to kill as many lives as possible are bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical/biological weapons.
User avatar #922 to #920 - ewowo (01/28/2013) [-]
Machince guns are meant for cover fire in army situations, sure. But I don't think people need that around the house.
User avatar #924 to #922 - doodogger (01/29/2013) [-]
This goes back to the fact that Americans believe they are born with the right to own weapons. Sure, they aren't practical for defending one's house, or hunting, but that's not the point. The point is that they become dangerous around careless, or mentally unstable people, even extremely angry people. We have good restrictions on machine guns in America. If someone wants one, they have to go through a bunch of **** , taxes, background checks, etc... to get it. And attention from police if they see you with it. I've never heard of anyone committing mass ****** with a machine gun yet in America. The only people that have them are people who are passionate about them/gun enthusiasts.
User avatar #928 to #924 - ewowo (01/29/2013) [-]
What about samller guns built for repeated fire, uzi and the like?
User avatar #933 to #928 - doodogger (02/01/2013) [-]
My best explanation is that SMGs are like Machine guns, but for CQB, combined with a pistol. They are usually used to keep heads down in CQB situations, but also often for killing of the opposition. I say this because it takes usually 1 bullet to take down your enemy or kill them. The SMG basically increases your chances of hitting the enemy possibly many times. Should these be banned? In my opinion, No. They are hard enough to get for a law abiding citizen. Even easier for a committed criminal.
User avatar #934 to #933 - doodogger (02/01/2013) [-]
And no new law can stop that.
User avatar #935 to #934 - ewowo (02/01/2013) [-]
So these guns are already restricted? that's good.
User avatar #936 to #935 - doodogger (02/03/2013) [-]
Yes. They are very very hard to get. But if you are a law abiding citizen, you have to go through more background checks from the ATF, more taxes, and get it ok'ed by your local police chief or sheriff.
User avatar #937 to #936 - ewowo (02/04/2013) [-]
And that's a bad thing?
User avatar #938 to #937 - doodogger (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not bad. It's perfect the way it is.
User avatar #939 to #938 - ewowo (02/06/2013) [-]
K.
User avatar #921 to #920 - doodogger (01/28/2013) [-]
I wish nuclear weapons were never made.
User avatar #923 to #921 - ewowo (01/28/2013) [-]
I hear you, man.
User avatar #672 to #666 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah because Hitler...

Tried to restrict the use of guns?

I don't necessarily have strong feelings one way or the other in this debate, I just keep facepalming at how BOTH SIDES use EQUALLY RIDICULOUS arguments to desperately try to prove their point.
User avatar #680 to #672 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, he was able to get them banned from the German population. The people who believe guns should be outlawed really need to do some thinking, check the FBI crime statistics with guns, and just be more down to earth, instead of just wanting to ban assault weapons. The only thing they will get from banning assault weapons is a "feel good" feeling, that they did something about it. But from stats and common sense, banning weapons does nothing. Gun crime has gone down about 50% since the early 1980s believe it or not, and not to mention there are a LOT more guns in circulation now too. The liberal dominated media just wants everyone to think that gun crime is abnormally high to push a ban on guns. Because you know, only the government needs them right?
User avatar #683 to #680 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
You're trying to convince me of your pro-gun points.
That's basically what it boils down to every time, huh? I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I really don't care what happens. I don't use guns. I don't think people NEED guns. But, if you really want those guns, I'm not gonna be the one to say you can't have them.
User avatar #687 to #683 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
It's ok as long as you don't want them taken away. Were cool.
User avatar #690 to #687 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
But seriously for a second. Don't you ever look at the arguments the pro-gun side uses and just want to hit yourself in the ******* face over and over again?

Like with every issue in the states EVER, both sides are voiced equally loudly by equally retarded people.
Untide Stats pls
User avatar #925 to #690 - doodogger (01/29/2013) [-]
What pro gun arguments make you want to "hit yourself in the ******* face over and over again"?
User avatar #927 to #925 - ewowo (01/29/2013) [-]
I can't bring myself to type them out.
User avatar #696 to #690 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Well I think the NRA has gone a little far at worst in their views.
User avatar #699 to #696 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Not even talking about the NRA itself, they can manage to be... pretty moderate, at times.

Just. Every issue ever. Angry Americans on facebook voicing their opinions.

I just sit back, read the arguments and I'm like: "Do people REALLY believe this?"

EVERY ISSUE EVER has both sides claiming the world will ACTUALLY END if they don't get what they want.
User avatar #703 to #699 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I believe that in most arguments, both sides have ground in their opinions, but I just don't believe that in gun control. I believe that if someone wants to have any gun they want to defend themselves, even if it's black and evil looking. And the people that don't believe in that have the choice not to own a gun. Most guns are owned by law abiding citizens.
User avatar #709 to #703 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
The problem is that most people who don't believe in guns aren't comfortable with other people owning guns.
Since the dawn of time, humanity has been in a contest of 'who has the biggest stick', and some people just don't want to do that anymore. Some people want nobody to have sticks.

I have to say I'm one of those people. I truly believe that this world would be better without guns.

I'm also not stupid, and I know that as long as ANYONE is allowed to own a gun, everyone should be.
User avatar #714 to #709 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Do you count governments as one of those people who have a stick?
User avatar #715 to #714 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Definitely.
Though I don't think in this debate it really matters. Their stick is bigger anyways. I don't think if they take away your sticks they'll gain any significant advantage they don't already have.
User avatar #723 to #715 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
The main reason we were allowed to own guns was to replace a tyrannical government if the time comes. Even though we can't really win a war or attrition against the U.S. Army, it would still be a guerrilla war. And as you probably know, it's very difficult to win a guerrilla war. The same thing would happen that happened in Afghanistan. The erosion of the U.S. military is happening there, unless we pull out. Afghanistan is where armies go to die. I don't see a second civil war in America, but if the government continues to erode our freedoms, we, as we were brought up, are paranoid about freedom, and we will defend them if the time comes. Is this ridiculous? I can't say.
User avatar #728 to #723 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
But don't you think you should slowly, but steadily, work towards a world were you won't NEED those guns anymore? I'm not saying that you should hand them over today, but just start getting to it.
User avatar #735 to #728 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I don't really know, because it's so normal and there is a correlation between more guns and less crime in the United States. Shooting them is very fun and can be very safe if you are properly trained. Perhaps when we can 100% trust our government. Then and only then can it be considered in America.
User avatar #736 to #735 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
I know it can't change now, but really, it's sort of like the cold war, isn't it? Not an ideal situation.
Still, it works for now.

Also, this thread has provided me with some serious pro-gun arguments. I can continue to go about my favourite business of shutting people up when they use retarded agrguments on EITHER SIDE of this debate.

Hah I feel so smugly superior right now I fart cigar smoke.
User avatar #741 to #736 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I might have to use that cigar smoke thing it's hilarious lol. Yes, it is a cold-war-like situation, but we are humans and as you know humans aren't perfect.
User avatar #746 to #741 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
I'd still say both sides have grounded arguments though.
User avatar #757 to #746 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah.
User avatar #679 to #672 - Yardie (01/25/2013) [-]
But Hitler did restrict gun usage. He expanded on the citizens' Gun Regulations that the National Socialist Party set in place before he was elected and made it easier for government officials (ie. the SS) to carry firearms.
User avatar #682 to #679 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Ok... still if you start compairing your opponent in a debate to Adolf Hitler, you're not making a very convincing point.

Personally I understand both parties, I wouldn't keep a gun myself and Im not very fond of the idea that everyone has one, but I'm a democrat (and that's in the actual meaning of the word, not the political party) to the core, and if the majority of the people want to keep their guns, they should.
User avatar #691 to #682 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
We're not necessarily saying that Obama will put people into extermination camps and kill millions of Americans, but I am saying that it's setting the stage for martial law and the possibility of the latter. We never seem to learn from the past. That is what is killing America.
User avatar #694 to #691 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Eh, I think you're all overreacting. Gun restriction has been applied in Europe, and we don't live every day of our lives in fear of our government.

We're mainly trying to scam our government out of as much money as possible.
And they do the same to us, it's a mutual understanding.
User avatar #700 to #694 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Americans have owned guns for hundreds of years, it is ingrained into so much of us. It is part of our culture and our way of life. It's our check/balance to the government. Most if not all governments in the world have a "positive powers" government/population, where the government tells the citizens what they can and can't do, basically gives them a list of their rights, and the rest belongs to the government. Here in America, it's the opposite of that, we have a "negative powers" which means that we the people tell the government what they can do. We basically give the government a list of their rights, and the rest is ours.
User avatar #702 to #700 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
I know your culture is different, and respect that. It's the main reason why I don't pick a side. If you guys were europeans, I'd be on the anti-gun side. Heck, if you guys were European, you wouldn't even have guns anymore.
User avatar #708 to #702 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I'm sure if I was raised in live in Europe, my opinion would probably be different. Because as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong... Most European countries have had strong gun control for a long time and never were able to develop that gun culture we have in America, and there was never much of a chance for many guns to circulate in the population for criminals to easily get their hands on. Just in America, we had to use guns to fight a government that was trying to rule us from across the world and we really really didn't agree with.
User avatar #713 to #708 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
That's very true. But even today, although I'm absolutely positively sure that your government (like all governments everywhere) is doing its very best to screw you over big time, I don't think they want to restrict guns so they can start subjugating the people to their evil will. They honestly want lower crime rates. Or at least cut down on the numberof casualties those crimes are causing.
User avatar #717 to #713 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
For Americans, taking guns away is just slowly eroding our freedom which we are very paranoid about (look at how our revolution started and went). For us, owning guns is a basic normality. Which it isn't for you I'm guessing, and respect that.
User avatar #726 to #717 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
That's kind of the point, owning guns is part of your cultural identity.
#727 to #726 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, owning guns is the choice of the people of each country. If you are not confortable owning them, then that's fine, if we aren't confortable not owning them then that's fine. I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding on FJ/the internet. It's not that common.
User avatar #731 to #727 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Also, to get back to your original comment, the post with the hitler comparison is a little ridiculous. If you want to convince people of your point, use solid arguments the ones in this thread.

People won't want to listen to you if you just stand around and shout 'SERIOUSLY PEOPLE OBAMA IS TOTALLY THE NEXT HITLER' at them.
User avatar #739 to #731 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
You are right, Obama is not the next hitler and I highly doubt that he would do anything comparable to hitler. It's just the fact that Hitler took away guns. The theme of what I am saying is that we must learn from the past or it will repeat its self, definitely not as drastically as I doubt the American government is close to being bad enough to commit those atrocities commited by the nazis. I know the whole Hitler example is ridiculous and exaggerated.
User avatar #743 to #739 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Is it even relevant? Would people have risen up against him if he'd freely allowed to use of guns?

Well the jews would have, but there's no way he'd let THEM have any guns. He hardly let them have any food, so that's that.

Anyways Obama is a pretty OK guy and I definitely prefer him to Bush. He's actually doing stuff. I agree, a lot of people don't like what he's doing, and some things might not work out, but he's seriously doing his best to make the USA a better place to live.

I mean seriously I think the USA is the only country in the entire world that actually actively OPPOSES health care.
It's not a bad thing!
User avatar #753 to #743 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
That's why I called the hitler example exaggerated. (and no autocorrect, I will NOT capitalize the H in hiter)

I don't really mind him, it's just that he wants to sign executive orders to force gun control, almost as if he's a king. Congress didn't even approve of it, and he didn't want them or the bill of rights to get in the way. That's my only big problem with him.
User avatar #758 to #753 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
That is kind of a dick move. Can he do that?

Also capitalising the H in Hitler doesn't mean you acknowledge his importance or anything, it's just proper spelling, no big deal.
User avatar #762 to #758 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, proper noun. But in my opinion hitler wasn't a proper person ;P, but I understand the grammar thing, it's basically an eff you to hitler even though it doesn't matter, just for the hell of it.

That's one thing I don't know much about, executive orders. Basically, the president can put things into action himself if he feels it is absolutely necessary. As if he's more wise than the rest of America put together. There are repercussions to that though, it makes the president less popular, and if he were to do something drastic, we'd have widespread riots at best.
User avatar #773 to #762 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Well there are worse things he could be doing with that power in my opinion.


By the way exactly are they banning? No details please, just the big lines. I've heard of the assault-weapon thingy they use for 'ILLICIT LIBERALIST PROPUHGANDURRR'; so no need to explain that, just tell me what kind of firearms are effectively being banned.
User avatar #777 to #773 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Assault weapon is just a concept. The popular term for say, an m4 is an assault rifle, but in reality it's just a rifle.
User avatar #776 to #773 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
It's not that simple, because there is no fixed definition of an assault rifle/weapon. What they want to ban are models of guns that are basically black, very ergonomic, and "evil" looking, some have called them. Does that make the weapon more deadly? Not really. They are also wanting to ban magazines over 10 rounds, bayonets, and collapsible stocks. In New York, the magazines are down to 7 rounds.
User avatar #729 to #727 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
It's not that common for two people to be sensible at the same time.

Now I'm gonna thumb up everything you posted in this thread, hang on.
User avatar #759 to #729 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Wtf some guy thumbed down that comment you just wrote. As if to make you think I did it. I don't know. I'll thumb everything you do to lol.
User avatar #761 to #759 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Don't stress, I know it wasn't you.
Also I don't really care, thumbs don't mean anything, words do. Your words bring me more joy than any amount of green thumbs ever could (or any amount of red thumbs could ever take away. Unless, you know, I get banned and **** , that'd be a bummer.)
User avatar #763 to #761 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah. How would you get banned? Besides putting child porn and such on here.
User avatar #770 to #763 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
If you get too much red thumbs you get auto-banned. Safety procedure against troll accounts.
User avatar #774 to #770 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Is it about how many red thumbs one post gets, or the total you accumulate over time?
User avatar #788 to #774 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Total over time. In relation to your green thumbs of course.
This is not going to happen to you man, don't worry.
#692 to #654 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
Wasn't that in reply to...
User avatar #701 to #692 - Cleavland Steamer (01/25/2013) [-]
It's a joke.
#707 to #701 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
I get it.
-3
#650 - gazajunk has deleted their comment [-]
#638 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~ Benjamin Franklin

"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
User avatar #677 to #638 - Monoge (01/25/2013) [-]
I hate to be 'that person,' but the stats you're showing are only a limited number occurring immediately around the gun ban. Technically, the highest number of gun-related crimes was in the late 90s and it was somewhere around 24,094 offenses. Since then, it has been steadily dropping each year.

Hell, by 2011, the number of offenses was down to 11,227. That's more than a 50% drop in just over a decade, which is some shocking progress. Read more about the initiation of the ban and the long-term effect here:


http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/index.html



There's probably always going to be gun violence, but don't completely disregard gun control as a possible step in the right direction.
#698 to #677 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
The statistics still show a correlation between the gun ban and increased crime rate in the U.K. After the Connecticut shooting, no one disregarded gun control as a possible step in the right direction, but the fact is it's not the right step.
User avatar #877 to #698 - Monoge (01/25/2013) [-]
There is always going to be some immediate backlash, and with the already horrifically high gun violence in the states and the much larger population, it will be something to behold. I do believe that handing out a stiffer sentence for owning unlicensed guns should be instated as well as banning overpowered weapons with no practical application.

However, unlike the UK, most of our citizens are against banning guns as strictly as the UK has done, even if it did decrease the gun violence over there drastically. Without public support, it would cause an unheard of backlash. I believe guns within the acceptable power range for hunting and home defense should stay in rotation (especially since a lot of people in rural locations really rely on their ability to hunt for food in the winter), but you don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer.
#893 to #877 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Educate yourself on why the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms paramount. Real arms, not watered down rifles. Educate yourself on the history of governments disarming citizens, and their consistent agendas to increase power. Look into the facts of what's happening and stop reacting emotionally to these emotional political moves.
User avatar #894 to #893 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
*Sigh.* It's a folly to assume someone is acting out of emotion off the bat, especially when communing through a poor medium of expression such as text. But moving on--



I am painfully aware of why our founding fathers initiated the right for citizens to bear arms. Aside from being an avid fan of history--as well as sociology--I commonly get bombarded with pro-gun speeches and agendas as I spent an extended period of time in the south, or NRA Country as many refer to it.


I understand and respect our founding father's wishes. I also respect the right of sane, safe individuals to carry weapons. But I believe there is no practical application for certain weapons, whether it's hunting or home defense. Some weapons are made for one purpose, and that is to kill large numbers of people in a relatively small amount of time. I do not believe our founding fathers envisioned something so devastatingly violent when they put that amendment in the constitution. Compared to the muskets they used back during the forging of our nation, an M4 Carbine probably looks more like an H bomb in comparison than an actual gun. It's really impractical to think that the founding fathers would want an average citizen to wield something that horrific--especially with the current state of the nation (being without a common enemy, we are massacring our own countrymen, which is something I don't think any sane person wants).


Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once. It just isn't necessary if you consider the superior numbers of the US civilians to the numbers of the US military--though I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them. Many soldiers have proven that already in instances such as the Occupy Movement.

#900 to #894 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
"I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them"
Without a militia, that is no longer necessary.

"Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once."
So, to protect us from our government, we do need guns just not good ones? A gun ban (especially a progressive one) will hurt a militia more than a public shooter who has proven that he doesn't need a rifle at all.

"...H bomb..." "something that horrific" "massacring our own countrymen"
Of course you're being emotional. You watch the news and think we're massacring our own country, but very few people are killed by firearms.

I just can't educate everyone. Please, educate yourselves before you walk us all into a cage.
User avatar #905 to #900 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
We aren't massacring each other? That must be how we got our reputation as a mellow, peaceful country.

As for my use of terms, I still remain stoically unemotional during this conversation. But you've proven twice that you easily make assumptions about that sort of thing, so it's a moot point now. 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that noise.

Here you go, do a little more research yourself:

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Precedent Definition: Noun
An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Read the information linked above and then that definition. Understand that there is a correlation (though not completely across the board) between gun control and less gun violence in the long run.
#906 to #905 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Really? You won't acknowledge what I told you, but you're going to tell me I don't learn well, read definitions to me, and tell me to read your articles on how gun control reduces gun violence. Fine.

The points I found most interesting were in your first source:
* "More guns tend to mean more homicide"
* "States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence"
Unfortunately, I couldn't trace the sources to actual data, they didn't elaborate on how they arrived at their data, and they seemed a bit sketchy, comparatively.

The statistics I'm referring to are commonly cited and imply correlation and causation between gun bans and increased firearm crime. This following Wikipedia page should be a reliable source. It's interesting how it implies long-term benefits to gun control in the description. No doubt, more misinformation, but in the "Firearms crime" section, particularly the 4th paragraph, it shows a drastic increase in firearm crime rate in the U.K. following the gun ban, and though the rate has decreased overtime, it is still much higher than it used to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms crime

That said, it doesn't even matter, because even if it was proved that gun laws can decrease firearm crime, it's not worth sacrificing the militia. Your own sources show only 2.75 people killed by firearms out of 100,000 in the U.S. Only one in 6000 guns actually kill someone here. We haven't even determined, yet, what actually happened at Sandy Hook as stories are mixed and a lot of information is being kept private. Several reports even indicate that the shooter was armed with only a Glock and a Sig Sauer semi-automatic handgun. Don't be in such a rush to sign away our necessary rights just because a few kids died. I am dead ******* serious.
User avatar #908 to #906 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
As a professional freelance writer and reporter, I wouldn't put too much faith in Wikipedia articles since they are easily manipulated. My articles were chosen because they are written by associated press members, overseen by publications with editorial standards I trust as a recurring employee of theirs.

As for my previous statement, it came out harsher than I had intended. You have my apologies for that.

Now, what happened in Sandy Hook is indeed sad, but I have purposefully neglected to mention it at all because I agree with you--there is a lot of conflicting information. In the long run, the situation there, no matter how sad, has not colored my opinion on gun control in the slightest. I have felt this way and will continue to feel this way despite the number of dead or alive school children. Also, do to conflicting reports, it is difficult to tell if he used any weapons I would consider ones worth of banning, further making it irrelevant.

I can respect your opinion on the militia, though I disagree. I believe that we are too unorganized and senseless as a whole to be trusted with such powerful weapons. They are being used on our civilians right now, not a greater opposing force. If the intense rate of gun violence continues as it has been, eventually the majority of citizens and lawmakers will be on the side of complete gun control and we will have all civilian held munitions taken away. Why is it so damn hard to give up high powered weapons with no currently practical application in order to preserve future lives and future freedoms?

Hell, even if we reinstated the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" that expired in 2004, it would be a step in the right direction. It's not -taking all your guns-. It's just making it harder to get the insanely overpowered ones with NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION OTHER THAN KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

For the record, I am just as serious.
#909 to #908 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
I didn't post a Wikipedia source, arbitrarily. I believe the sources to be more reliable than your cited publications. The press is easily manipulated, as well, let alone biased and quick to write a story.

Organized or not, effective weapons are necessary for a militia, and a militia is necessary to keep the government in check. The practical application of "high powered" weapons is in use every day without ever firing a shot. If you take that away, you have the inevitable Oligarchy that no longer has trouble executing orders independent of the will of the people.

You said yourself, these shootings may not have even been done with rifles, and they certainly weren't necessary. So called "high powered" weapons are rarely used in crimes. They are all but irrelevant in reducing firearm crime. Banning them will affect the militia more than crime. Not to mention the fact that firearm killings are extremely rare, as previously stated, and not worth sacrificing your necessary rights. So, don't tell me, "no practical application other than killing mass numbers of people," again, because that's a bunch of malanky!

P.S. The Columbine shooting occurred in the middle of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". A gun ban will only increase violence as it is statistically shown to do, but the effect will be minor compared to the actualization of disarming the people.
#910 to #909 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
When I mentioned the Wikipedia sources, I was referring to the citations for the passage, which is a U.K. government publication from the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
#665 to #638 - devout feminist (01/25/2013) [-]
britains fight with their hands, the are more violent than americans, just that they dont gun down people with no reason, they fight for fun and drukenness... they are mabe violent, but god damn the diffrence between britain and murica is big. the guns and the shooting is strictly turkish/pakkistani, negro getto **** and always have been, i myst say that that picthure is the stupidest pice of **** ive seen, its a total lie.

but foer your sake, i hope you keep your guns, and i hoe yuor government goes to hell, the normal people of america will move out, and the stupid poor people with guns are going to shoot whats left, and the problem will get rid of it self
User avatar #685 to #665 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Are you serious? I really hope you're just trolling...
User avatar #651 to #638 - Yardie (01/25/2013) [-]
How are there more gun crimes than violent crimes? Or is that the number of violent crimes that are gun related?
#641 to #638 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of it's experienced Patriots to prevent it's ruin."
~ Samuel Adams
#635 - TheGreatAnon (01/25/2013) [-]
Holy 						****					! While alive, Hitler must have taken a 						****					 sometime in his life, and I do too.   
I'm Hitler reborn!
Holy **** ! While alive, Hitler must have taken a **** sometime in his life, and I do too.
I'm Hitler reborn!
#632 - thatmotherfer (01/25/2013) [-]
I give up.
#624 - funmanigro (01/25/2013) [-]
hilarious
User avatar #627 to #624 - leted (01/25/2013) [-]
hitlarious indeed.
+3
#621 - sandwitchman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #614 - usmcoorah (01/25/2013) [-]
and we still have three more years with him....christ..
#646 to #614 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
You mean four?
User avatar #649 to #646 - usmcoorah (01/25/2013) [-]
Well the next election is in 2016, so yeah closer to four years but I am kind of intoxicated and did the math of the years in my head.

2013-2016 is three years. That is my logic. I have to pee.
#660 to #649 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
lol, the inauguration was the other day.
#673 to #660 - autoxx (01/25/2013) [-]
You people actually voted him back in?!?

I represent Canada and we are concerned you have all lost your minds...
User avatar #686 to #673 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
I didn't vote for him...
#613 - jellytamer (01/25/2013) [-]
Oh how I miss using this GIF on items board
Oh how I miss using this GIF on items board
#608 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #2757540 at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic ** go ahead, ban all guns, i'll just go slaughter legions of school children with a broad sword. and you wont have any guns to stop me
User avatar #626 to #608 - arkamedies (01/25/2013) [-]
bitch
#628 to #626 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #83891 at Friendly ** lol internet fight!!!!!!!
#629 to #628 - arkamedies (01/25/2013) [-]
**arkamedies rolled a random image posted in comment #2630776 at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic ** this goes in your anus
#636 to #629 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #51 at so much talent ! ** right back at you, look what i found.
funnyjunk.com/channel/ponytime/Racism+is+best+barn/xpMmGkc/
User avatar #637 to #636 - arkamedies (01/25/2013) [-]
lol
#640 to #637 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #22178 at Drawing & Art ** let me try the whole anal penetration part again
User avatar #644 to #640 - arkamedies (01/25/2013) [-]
getting ***** are we?
#645 to #644 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #37 at Mr Moseby ** good night
#648 to #645 - arkamedies (01/25/2013) [-]
**arkamedies rolled a random image posted in comment #233015 at Friendly ** cya fag
#642 to #640 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #10 at Best Yahoo question + answer ** i give up
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #10 at Best Yahoo question + answer ** i give up
#689 to #642 - takesomemorewater (01/25/2013) [-]
**takesomemorewater rolled a random image posted in comment #1441 at Doctor Who Thread ** No!
User avatar #647 to #642 - arkamedies (01/25/2013) [-]
so is that guy plowing my tight virgin ass hole tonight?
#594 - thisotherdude (01/25/2013) [-]
Well my opinion on gun control in America is... Wait a minute, I'm Canadian, I don't give a **** , we're slowly getting less harsh gun laws here bitches! Give it about 10 years and I'm sure even restricted firearms won't require registration.

Smell that? That's the sweet smell of maple syrup covered progress baby.
User avatar #688 to #594 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Didn't your prime minister use public funds to buy jet fighters?
User avatar #695 to #688 - thisotherdude (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, I believe he did.
#587 - fortes (01/25/2013) [-]
Obama breathes air, just like Hitler did
Obama breathes air, just like Hitler did
 Friends (0)