Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#153 - LocoJoe (01/30/2013) [-]
Gotta love that feeling when I live in Texas and can shoot any cunt who breaks into my home.
User avatar #204 to #153 - itrooztrooperdown (01/30/2013) [-]
I'd rather love that feeling when you leave your home open at night and nobody wants to break into your house because nobody needs to do so and nobody is a cunt.
#291 to #204 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Is this in the same state where communism is good in practice, nobody wants to pirate music, and court rulings are unaffected by politics?
User avatar #178 to #153 - drakenumen (01/30/2013) [-]
Gotta love living in Maine and have the same right, or alaska, or california, or colorado, or connecticut, or florida, or georgia, or hawaii, or illinois, or indiana, or iowa, or kansas....
#157 to #153 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
A life for an object. Typical Texan attitude.
#218 to #157 - whiteyswag (01/30/2013) [-]
Comment as anon. Typical faggot attitude.
Comment as anon. Typical faggot attitude.
User avatar #164 to #157 - dharkmoswen ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I salute you LocalJoe, and it's about more than your belongings, anon. It's the fact that most places you get sued if you shoot someone when they're breaking in and threatening your family. I have seen a case where a known sex offender broke into a single mother's place, she shot his leg IN HER DAUGHTER'S ROOM and still ended up getting sued by the guy and the state. In good ol' Texas, you can shoot someone if it means protecting your family and you don't have to worry about paying the other person for the right to do so.
User avatar #160 to #157 - LocoJoe (01/30/2013) [-]
My life or his. I think I'll live.

I prefer killing the ****** instead of letting him live that way my taxes don't pay for his living costs. If some idiot is robbing he's scum anyways, prolly would have breeded some little welfare recipients for himself. You should thank me for not letting these welfare leeches live.
#169 to #160 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Omg I'm laughing so much right now. You're such a toooool.
#149 - dickticklerluv ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
However, you can legally shoot someone if they trespass on your property.
However, you can legally shoot someone if they trespass on your property.
User avatar #166 to #149 - dharkmoswen ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
As long as they don't sue you.
#192 to #166 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Thats why you shoot to kill, you injure point one at them they sue
#279 to #192 - ccplb (01/30/2013) [-]
Well unfortunately, the family can sue for the loss of a loved one if you kill him. Even if it is his fault and your life was legitimately in danger.
#170 to #166 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
I live in Texas and if some cunt breaks into my house. Im dropping them...

User avatar #175 to #170 - dharkmoswen ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
That's the awesomeness of texas, though. Sadly, the rest of the US sucks on that front.
User avatar #182 to #175 - drakenumen (01/30/2013) [-]
Maine: Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force

gotta make this point again
User avatar #186 to #182 - dharkmoswen ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Nice! I'll have to look more into this. Thanks :D
User avatar #183 to #182 - drakenumen (01/30/2013) [-]
and tons of other states
User avatar #145 - nucularwar (01/30/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people,
(angry) People (with guns) kill people.
User avatar #158 to #145 - annoyingsmartguy (01/30/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
User avatar #199 to #158 - beatmasterz ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Bullets don't kill people. Bullet wounds kill people.
User avatar #224 to #199 - nogphille (01/30/2013) [-]
bullet wounds don't kill people; loss of blood, lead poisoning and damaged vital organs kill people.
User avatar #161 to #158 - nucularwar (01/30/2013) [-]
Who was that comedian who said we should just charge a **** ton for bullets? people would think twice if every shot cost 50 bucks
User avatar #188 to #161 - krnboy (01/30/2013) [-]
actually he said it was $5,000 but yes, it was chis rock
#174 to #161 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Chris rock I think...
User avatar #144 - steamboy (01/30/2013) [-]
Dear lord no one is is trying to take your ****** 9mm away from you. Stop being a child.
#254 to #144 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
This seems to contradict you. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo
#156 to #144 - LocoJoe (01/30/2013) [-]
The fact you're taking anything away is pissing me off. Hey lets start banning assault speech. With all these kids suiciding we must protect the children! Think of the children!( yeah I can play that emtional card too)

You can't use words longer than 6 letters, no one NEEDs words that powerful.
You can speak, type, etc etc more than 60 words a minute, no one NEEDs to articulate that fast. You can't speak more than 20 words at a time, no one NEEDs assault speach.
#189 to #156 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Stop being all redneck and take the time to actually read what the government is proposing. No one is trying to take away your guns. They're coming up with a stronger regulation to guarantee that guns are being used in a safe manner.
User avatar #195 to #189 - LocoJoe (01/30/2013) [-]
LEGAL gun owners already use firearms in a safe manner. How about you look at the majority and quit focusing on rednecks who do stupid **** . Most murders with guns are committed by Trayvon shooting at Tyrone with his gat over a red bandanna.
#203 to #195 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. You might wanna work on your reading skills.
User avatar #167 to #165 - LocoJoe (01/30/2013) [-]
You are lucky. Almost went past the six letter limit there.
#126 - jdonaldson has deleted their comment [-]
#139 to #126 - lordaurion (01/30/2013) [-]
Ahahahahaahhaa oh wait you're serious. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

Seriously, go read the original Brother's Grimm and Anderson fairytails. Modern Hollywood has nothing on that stuff.
#151 to #139 - jdonaldson has deleted their comment [-]
#141 to #139 - bcsaint (01/30/2013) [-]
something this stupid needs the gif ha ha
something this stupid needs the gif ha ha
#130 to #126 - gergen (01/30/2013) [-]
Bitch please. Do you even Deadite?
User avatar #138 to #137 - gergen (01/30/2013) [-]
We need to start an Evil Dead thread. I'm all outta pics and gifs.
#127 to #126 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
God you're retarded. That's like saying imma watch dredd and after that kill every living ******* junkie i see cause i'm the law. If people watch to imitate then the world shoulda ended a long time ago when movies such as rambo came out. Stop being a pussy and blaming movies or and other kinds of media for your inability to separate fiction from reality

TL;DR Quit blaming the media for your inability to separate fiction from reality
#131 to #127 - jdonaldson has deleted their comment [-]
#150 to #131 - teenytinyspider (01/30/2013) [-]
That's not from watching violent movies and playing violent video games. That's a mental problem. Don't punish the majority for the minority.
#133 to #131 - gergen (01/30/2013) [-]
Any basic college-level Communications class would prove this ******** .

Pic related, it's more Evil Dead
#129 to #127 - welshdrag (01/30/2013) [-]
See, this guy gets it.
#125 - jdonaldson has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #113 - responsibletim (01/30/2013) [-]
Can't own a gun? Get a crossbow.
User avatar #230 to #113 - undeadwill ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Please hold still while I reload and don't move please
User avatar #147 to #113 - redrex (01/30/2013) [-]
just. don't. miss.
#107 - tiddycats has deleted their comment [-]
#118 to #107 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
The liberals 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!
#122 to #118 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Those who wrote the sources you're so proud to present are as stupid as you.
#95 - merrymarvelite (01/30/2013) [-]
Is anybody really trying to take away handguns from people who own them legally, though?

I thought it was larger assault rifles your government was going after. You know, the ones that nobody has any real reason to own unless you're in an actual war zone.
User avatar #228 to #95 - undeadwill ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Till the liberals say that no one needs a large clip handgun to defend themselves when revolvers are enough to stop an intruder. And semi automatic handguns are often used in school shootings.
#222 to #95 - whiteyswag (01/30/2013) [-]
More pistols kill people each year than assault rifles do....just sayin...
More pistols kill people each year than assault rifles do....just sayin...
#155 to #95 - arkfire (01/30/2013) [-]
But that is the point of having the gun in the first place, if the government is oppressive they can rebel against them and take back the country. So how are we suppose to fight them if we have 10 or less bullets per magazine?
User avatar #152 to #95 - LocoJoe (01/30/2013) [-]
Want to know my reason for owning one? I want it. I have a right. Bill of Rights man, not the Bill of Needs. You don't NEED a smart phone, you don't NEED new clothes every season, you don't NEED a laptop, you don't NEED a car that goes past 60 MPH.
User avatar #114 to #95 - sketchE ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
the irony is that assault weapons, a very general term for cosmetic traits, only accaunt for about 2 percent of all gun crime
User avatar #110 to #95 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Is anybody really trying to take away semi-automatic rifles from people who own them legally, though?
User avatar #123 to #110 - jdonaldson (01/30/2013) [-]
Yes they are trying to take them away.
User avatar #99 to #95 - LtMcG ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Or to shoot cool guns
User avatar #96 to #95 - bcsaint (01/30/2013) [-]
anything that holds more than 7 rounds
User avatar #83 - Snookbone (01/30/2013) [-]
Seeing as there's another ********* down there, I shall weigh in with my non-committal, balanced view.

Stricter gun laws will help to reduce the very number of domestic shootings (both deliberate and accidental) and murders by firearms.

Stricter gun laws will not stop insane people doing insane things.

Basically, it can be a good or a bad thing, so... yeah.
User avatar #171 to #83 - bramdk (01/30/2013) [-]
you arent being non-committal because while one thing is an opinion for stricter gun laws the other isnt an opinion against it but rather a general thing
#102 to #83 - shadowspeaker (01/30/2013) [-]
Well if murder is such a problem, why don't we make it illegal? *heavy sarcasm* Look, this law really int going to do anything except to reduce the number of legally owned guns and increase the number of guns owned illegally. The people who own illegal weapons don't give two hits about the law because more than likely, they are using that gun to break the law.
#136 to #102 - traceirving (01/30/2013) [-]
Essentially, the point of having stricter gun laws is to make it harder for people who want guns for the wrong reasons to get them.

The alternative is to make it easy for them. Of course, that means people who want guns to defend themselves will be able to attain them. But at the end of the day, giving everyone guns and saying 'Welp, its fair game now!' is ******* barbaric. that's not the kind of world we should be working towards.

Also, I don't see how anyone believes guns can be defensive. If a criminal wants to shoot me and I have a gun, that's not going to do a lot when he shoots me first because he cares less about the consequences.
#143 to #136 - gillypie (01/30/2013) [-]
Most places have stand your ground or castle laws that allow you to kill a perpetrator with no consequence and you should never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot. Threatening a criminal with a gun pretty much tells them you won't shoot. Not saying it's the best way to go about things, but if someone breaks into my house, there are going to be a few .40 caliber rounds headed their way.
User avatar #97 to #83 - bcsaint (01/30/2013) [-]
what about the guy in japan who hacked an entire class to death with a katana, people will find a way
User avatar #82 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
People are so obsessed with the second amendment talking about guns. "Arms" doesn't necessarily mean firearms. If you can't own a gun, get a pair of katanas.
User avatar #89 to #82 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Arms within the second amendment refers to the weapons that the government uses for it's military so if the government manages to turn it's military on it's people then the people have a chance to fight back.
User avatar #105 to #89 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
And who says the people can't fight back with swords?
User avatar #108 to #105 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I really hope you're joking...
User avatar #109 to #108 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Half joking, mainly because katanas are awesome.

In all seriousness, though, I think there should be some restriction on firearm sales. Better background checks, better psyche checks, and not making it so easy to buy a **** ton of weapons and ammo on the internet without anyone batting a eye, like James Eagan Holmes.
User avatar #111 to #109 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I agree entirely with that. Just so you know you can't actually order guns online though unless you're a dealer, just ammo.
User avatar #132 to #111 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
The problem with the far right is that they think everyone should own a gun.
The problem with the far left is that they think that no one should have a gun (yet, contrary to what many think, the President is not that far to the left).

Is it really so hard to find a common middle-ground? I swear, "compromise" was taken out of the political dictionary sometime within the past 20 years. The political divide in the US is sickening.
User avatar #135 to #132 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I don't think any gun should be banned but do things like mandatory mental health checks, Limits on how many guns you can purchase within a certain period, Face-to-face purchases required on ammo, requiring licenses for automatic weapons, better documented sales and require transfers to be documented as well, etc.
User avatar #142 to #135 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
If it were easy to perfect gun regulation, no one would be having this debate in the first place.
User avatar #148 to #142 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I never said it would be perfect but it would be much better than now.
User avatar #168 to #148 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Personally, I think there should be some restriction, simply because there are just some weapons that citizen's don't need to own. I'm not saying anything should be banned, but a common citizen shouldn't need a firearm that can spray bullets and kill multiple people within a few seconds. When our founding fathers wrote the second amendment, the only guns that existed at the time were ones where each shot needed to to be loaded before firing, and the reload process was extremely slow. I can't think of any reason why someone would need an AK-47 or the like outside of war.

If people really wanted to overthrow a "tyrannical government," I doubt politicians would put up enough of a fight for automatic weapons to be necessary.
User avatar #237 to #168 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
As I had said, for fully automatic weapons a license, although with that have mandatory mental health check that are more in-depth and require periodical check-ups to make sure you're still sane.
#242 to #237 - Marker ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Makes sense, honestly.

<<Then we won't get people like these.
User avatar #277 to #242 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #84 to #82 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Except katanas are overrated.
#72 - pyra (01/30/2013) [-]
Someone decided to shoot up a school because he's crazy?

Better tighten gun laws
#70 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Gun control =/= Banning guns.

Gun bans? Retarded.
Doing nothing? Retarded.
Soley blaming mental health (which IS an issue, but not the only one)? Retarded.
Soley blaming lax laws? Also retarded.

It'ss a combination of these things that need to be considered when coming up with a 'solution'. And I think too many people are picking 'sides' instead of trying to make anything better.
#296 to #70 - lasmamoe (01/30/2013) [-]
&gt;Pick out every pro-gun and anti-gun person in the country   
&gt;Take them to middle of desert   
&gt;Have epic shootout   
&gt;End the debate once and for all   
>Pick out every pro-gun and anti-gun person in the country
>Take them to middle of desert
>Have epic shootout
>End the debate once and for all
#140 to #70 - lordaurion (01/30/2013) [-]
Because restriction and registration has never, ever led to outright bans and confiscation.
#98 to #70 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Except that's what "gun control" entails.
#220 to #98 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Only if your mentally ill or irresponsible. So which of those two are you that makes you so afraid the big man's gonna take your gun away?
User avatar #112 to #73 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Needs a tl;dr line.
User avatar #190 to #112 - trollnot (01/30/2013) [-]
just read it you want to claim your educated and smart but no one wants to take 5 mins out of their day to read statistics
User avatar #226 to #190 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
I did, and I understood it. I'm just saying that many a person isn't going to bother to read it.
User avatar #331 to #226 - trollnot (01/30/2013) [-]
Then they are ignorant
User avatar #332 to #331 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Then entice them. Give them a quick summary so they may be interested enough to take the time to read it and learn something. Why else do you think newspapers use headlines?
User avatar #71 to #70 - jasonvgrace ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
See here down under, we just thought that giving the entire population free access to lethal weaponry probably wouldn't be the best idea.

I think it worked out rather well
#121 to #71 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
We even gave people money to hand in their guns...

Didn't stop my dad hanging onto his hunting rifles though.
User avatar #68 - elyiia (01/30/2013) [-]
Oh god, not this **** again. I thought we were done with this.
User avatar #284 to #68 - undeadwill ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
It will not be done till we are free.
#46 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
being somebody who owns no automatic or semi automatic weapons(colt army 1867 revolver and replica colt 1867 navy revolver and colt 1880 and a 1894 remmington double barrel I am in favor of the assault weapon ban, I personally see no need to own guns that can go semi auto or full auto, logical rational responses only please
#128 to #46 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
It's not the fact that nobody needs a semi-automatic weapon. I would agree with you on that fact. That is not enough to ban something however. By following that logic, all cars should be banned that go faster than the speed limit. Not only are they not needed, but they actually allow people to make a poor decision to drive excessively fast, endangering others. Many more people die from stupid motorists than stupid gun owners, yet i do not hear outcry to ban all Vipers.
User avatar #65 to #46 - ampharosrules (01/30/2013) [-]
Lol. So much anon.
#61 to #46 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
While were at it, I dont see the NEED for someone to have a multimillion dollar car that goes 200 mph. But ya know what, people have them because they CAN and they WANT to. Are we trying to ban cars? No of course not. Peoples logic nowadays is so ****** up just because one dumbass shot up a school with an assault rifle. Do you remember virginia tech? No assualt weapons were used there, but did anyone try to ban handguns? **** nooooo. ******* people....
User avatar #67 to #61 - tkfourtwoone (01/30/2013) [-]
That's the most stupid and idiotic comparison you can make.

A car is used to get from Point A to Point B. A gun is used to kill stuff.
A car becomes a threat only and ONLY when misused (stupid driving, loss of control, etc). How the **** do you misuse a gun (inb4 "you can point it at yourself by mistake", that's not a misuse, that's a contribution to society)?!?

HOW THE **** do you compare them?!?
User avatar #80 to #67 - ellwood ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
not to sound like i agree with either side, but guns aren't just used to kill stuff. In fact, I rather enjoy target shooting with my dad. It's just something we do together to spend time together. However, I do enjoy hunting as well. Also, we don't own any assault rifles.
User avatar #79 to #67 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Well, you can use cars for malicious purposes just like you can use a gun for malicious purposes. Yes, a gun is designed to kill. It's HOW you use that potential that determines how dangerous it is. A gun in my hands is about as dangerous as a Nerf gun, where the same gun in the hands of Grimdeath McHatredslayer is probably the single most dangerous thing on the face of the planet. Same thing with a car. I personally use a car to go from point A to point B, where Mr. "I do donuts over screaming children because I can't get an erection otherwise" is going to misuse his car's potential.
#63 to #61 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
I see your point and you made a very rational argument, honestly one of the most rational I have ever heard, because in essence you are right for most people it is more of a want than a need, I know a few people however who say they need them.
yes I know it is copied from what I typed to the other user who made kind of your same argument but longer but hey I am lazy
#59 to #46 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
I am sick of people like you. Saying you "dont see the need" for people like me to own my AR-15. I dont see the NEED for some fat bitch to eat 5 cheeseburgers in one sitting, but you know what, I dont say **** because that is what she WANTS to do. Yeah nobody really NEEDS a gun like that (unless military) but we have them because we WANT to and CAN. It is our ******* right, and they are fun to shoot. Just the other day me and my buddy went through about 1000 tracer rounds, popping them off like crazy, lighting up the night sky. And you know what, it was ******* awesome. Now how fun would that be with just a single shot....not fun at all. You dont NEED your gun either when it comes down to it, but you have it because you WANT it. I dont NEED to have an xbox to entertain myself, but I do because I WANT to and CAN. It is all about the WANT and CAN. So leave us the hell alone. I dont tell you what you do and dont need
#69 to #59 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
I know. That's why I'm trying to buy nuclear weapons. Not because I need it but just because I want it.
User avatar #90 to #69 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
An insane person with a gun can be stopped by a sane person with a gun. An insane person with a nuke can't be stopped at all after he detonates it. Your logic is severely flawed.
User avatar #81 to #69 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
I respect your endeavors, and while I believe that you should be legally free to do so, the social repercussions of having such a device should make you contemplate whether or not your purchase is a wise one.

Though it would make a pretty awesome conversation piece.
#62 to #59 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Technically I inherited my guns, I am more of a car person, but I see your point and while in an angry rant of a response you made a very rational argument, honestly one of the most rational I have ever heard, because in essence you are right for most people it is more of a want than a need, I know a few people however who say they need them.
User avatar #58 to #46 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
There's no real response to that, other than the fact that the assault weapon ban does not address fully automatic weapons in any compacity, as those are already illegal under the machine gun ban of 1986. Weapons made before that are grandfathered in past the law, and current legislation doesn't touch them. The assault weapon ban seeks to disbar the use of "military looking" semi-automatic weapons by banning specific features, such as folding stocks and pistol grips.
#64 to #58 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
excellent point
#53 to #46 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Have fun when you miss the first time. You're not gonna get a second shot
User avatar #85 to #53 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Dude, what the **** are you saying? Then why bother with anything more than a single-shot muzzle-loading firearm?
#55 to #53 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
I mainly have them because I am a slight history buff but I am a fairly decent shot besides a shot gun in a house is surprisingly effective
User avatar #37 - loganhusted (01/30/2013) [-]
the 2nd amendment isn't there to protect your right to hunt. It's there to protect your rights.
#13 - miscarriage (01/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Just use a knife.

Although i'm still against the new law/whatever
#115 to #13 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
The law system is ****** though. If you used a knife on a burglar you can still be charged for carrying an offensive weapon and if you stab him, you will be charged will attempted murder. Even if you use your fists to defend yourself and you **** him up, you'll be charged with assault.

Well thats the way it is in the UK anyway, Westminster has gone done ****** up everything for everyone. Just recently they banned the sale of "Alien Plants" because it was a risk to native species, completely oblivious to the part of them allowing aliens (Immigrants) in to breed us out. According to the telegraph, if immigration rates stay the same, the whites will be the minorities by 2066.
User avatar #117 to #115 - miscarriage (01/30/2013) [-]
You make a good point but in 'merica if you do it out of self defense i don't believe you would get charged with anything if they were trying to rob you.
User avatar #12 - IAmManbearpig ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile in New Hampshire, if someone breaks into your house, shoot the ****** and if they make it out, drag them back in.
User avatar #253 to #12 - turbodoosh ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
"Live Free or Die" - best state motto/ life advice ever
#194 to #12 - saladtongsofdeath (01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile in dominican republic.... just shoot the ****** and bribe the cops will 5 'merican dollars
#20 to #12 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Lol that happened in coos county a while back
User avatar #7 - joekooldash (01/30/2013) [-]
meanwhile, under the Obama magical fairy princessistration...
User avatar #124 to #7 - joekooldash (01/30/2013) [-]
ok, i want to get something straight, the obama gun law wants to get rid of military and police grade weapons, but this would compromise our national security. the world views america as a bunch of gun toting loons, and thats the way we like it. you dont see any foreign nations attempting to invade our soil anytime soon huh? also automatic weapons are legal in some states with a class 3 weapons license.
User avatar #52 to #7 - whycanticaps (01/30/2013) [-]
magical fairy princessistration*
User avatar #54 to #52 - whycanticaps (01/30/2013) [-]

stupid word filters. I thought I was gonna be a smartass, but noooooo, that backfired on me. good one addy, good one
User avatar #120 to #54 - opiethepug (01/30/2013) [-]
The Obama magical fairy princessistration?

Testing: magical fairy princess
#14 to #7 - hanabro (01/30/2013) [-]
Obama doesn't want to get rid of pistols. Or shotguns, or hunting rifles. Just military-grade assault weapons that no civilian has any business owning anyway.
#76 to #14 - supermegasherman (01/30/2013) [-]
"assault weapons"

you know its funny because my mini 14 with the plastic stock is considered an "assault weapon" but with the wooden stock its not. man how intelligent is that? that is the smartest law ever.
User avatar #75 to #14 - trollnot (01/30/2013) [-]
> military assault weapon
Dat use of buzzwords

What the **** do you think we are talking about here? Full-autos? They have been banned since 1986 you *******


You do know this ban would make an ar-15 illegal which fires a 223 round but the ruger mini 14 ranch rifle in semi-auto, same caliber and magazine size it would not? Tell me how this plan with stop gun violence,

You can sit here and play arm-chair activist all you want I actually went to my capital to march for my rights. Quit ******** on the constitution. I was at the capital the day they Gun-grabbers marched to show their support for the ban, And I can tell you that you people are not the majority.

In-fact you can go the CNN's website right now, They have started producing Pro-gun articles because of how bad their ratings dropped after that fat-jawed idiot Piers Morgan started his holy crusade by standing on the corpses of children to promote his agenda.

You are right in only one respect. NOW is the time to act, BUT with our "BRAINS" not our feelings. hundreds of children die each day in america because of handgun crimes.


No you can track down gun violence in america by city you can even Pinpoint it to neighborhoods. WHAT we need to do is put wealth into these neighborhoods, and increase education in these places. For mass shooters we need to fix mental health we also need to stop them from glorifying these mass shooters in the media like there some ******* war god.

SO ******* what? cost to much do you realize how many people you will put out of a job by banning these rifles? Millions of **** sake. And saying things like "Our children shouldn't be safe because it cost to much shouldn't be a ******* answer. You should be ashamed for even using that god damn picture. Think with your ******* brain not your feelings.
#60 to #14 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
no he wants to get rid of weapons that look like assault rifles. fully automatic weapons are already banned ******* retard.
User avatar #66 to #60 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
You know, people like you make it so much ******* harder for people like me to defend my point. You can make a goddamn argument without being such a giant douche bag and insulting the other person. It undermines your argument and mine. Read below on how to actually have a goddamn discussion about this instead of stomping your feet and resorting to grade school insults. Grow the hell up if you want to be taken seriously.
User avatar #91 to #66 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
#56 to #14 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
What ******* fantasy universe are you living in?! Miltary grade weapons have been illegal to own for decades. Semi-automatic weapons fire ONE shot with each pull of the trigger and are far from "military grade". Find me a military that issues rifles which are limited to semi-automatic only. You're a ******* moron.
User avatar #42 to #14 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I am so stupidly sick of this fallacy. No civilian can get ahold of a military-grade anything. The term "assault weapon", as currently defined in law, is basically any gun that looks "military like". It is a made up term that is not actually used in the gun world, and politicians arbitrarily used it to define semi-automatic weapons with 'scary features', like fold-able stocks and pistol grips. What you people seem to think is going to be banned are weapons like the M16 and the M4, assault rifles that have fully automatic and burst fire capability that can mow people down. What they are actually TRYING to ban are weapons like the AR15, which is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. It just looks more military like. You can read all about the damn thing here.


Please, educate yourself about what is going on before saying such things.
User avatar #88 to #42 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
The AR-15 was made for the US military, it is a military grade weapon. US citizens have no business what so ever owning a gun like this.
Yes the civilian sold rifle is semi automatic, but that doesn't really make it any less dangerous.
Most people who own them won't be using them to shoot targets or hunt, most will have them for "personal defence", but if you're able to carry one of these then someone who wants to do you harm can also own one.
Not to mention the fact that you won't be given the opportunity to use it.
User avatar #319 to #88 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
The AR-15 was originally designed for military use (as the M16), until the weapon was later sold to Colt in 1963, were it was redesigned from the M16 weapon system to the current civilian firearm you have now. The AR-15 in its current incarnation was not made for the military, it was designed with civilians in mind.
#184 to #88 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
I know several people who own an AR-15 they all use them for hunting..
User avatar #209 to #184 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
So do I, but of the 2.5+ million of them owned in the states probably less that 1% are used for hunting.
User avatar #92 to #88 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
You can't carry a rifle in public.
User avatar #101 to #92 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
Exactly, which is why having one as a personal defence weapon is ridiculous.
Inside your own home you'd be better with a handgun than a rifle.
User avatar #116 to #101 - sketchE ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
id be more worried about the guy breaking into my house with a shotgun than the guy walking down the street with a knife.
User avatar #134 to #116 - defeats (01/30/2013) [-]
If someone broke into my home with a shotgun I'd much prefer to neutralise them with a handgun. A Snubnosed revolver for example
And handguns aren't being banned.
User avatar #231 to #134 - sketchE ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
which is strange because assault weapons only account for two percent of all gun crime. but think about it this way. the average person isnt going to be trained with a gun.i dont agree with that, i think all gun owners should have some form of safety training, but thats the reality of it. they may need more than six bullets. what if the guys on drugs? police are trained two to the chest one to the head but the average citizen isnt.

now lets get down to the real reason gun owners dont want them taken away. theyre fun as hell to shoot. go to an unmanned range set up random **** to shoot at and go crazy. its a blast.

i have no problem with better control of whos buying them. you want psychological tests first? fine. you want a gun license? fine. you want safety courses before being allowed? i will vote for that bill and sign up. just dont take away the fun guns that kill the smallest percent.

the issue is the current ban isnt trying to reduce gun violence. whens the last time you saw an NRA member go on a shooting spree? sure people that are trained with guns kill people. not too long ago a pro wrestler killed his entire family with his bare hands then killed himself. we gonna start cutting people arms off the moment they learn how to kill with them?

guns make killing a lot of people quickly easier. got it but ever notice where these mass shootings are? schools theaters, you know places where its illegal to have guns. yet we dont have one trained person with a gun to protect these places. courts have armed personel why cant schools?

its at this point i realise i went into a very long winded rant and am stopping now
User avatar #106 to #101 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Call me paranoid but I have a rifle and a set of riot gear (ballistic vest, leggings, sleeves, helmet, gas mask, shield, etc) in case of a large scale riot or invasion on U.S. soil, I hope that neither of those will ever happen but just in case it's good to be prepared. If it's gonna be a choice of me or them it's gonna sure as hell be them if I can help it. (I have three magazines of rubber bullets for the riot scenario and three magazines of fmj's for the invasion one).
#43 to #42 - Whytemane (01/30/2013) [-]
Uh... ******** .Give me just a moment and I'll have you to a link of people firing ******* CANNONS.
#45 to #43 - Whytemane (01/30/2013) [-]
Bam. https://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

If that's not military grade weapons, what the **** are you on?
User avatar #47 to #45 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
All the weapons featured in that video were created and manufactured before 1986, when the machine gun ban was enacted. Current legislation can not (and will not) touch them do to grandfather law. They existed before the legislation was passed, and are freely in civilian circulation. Further more, they are heavily regulated, requiring extensive, EXTENSIVE background checks and several government permits to own. Most of them are in incredible disrepair due to being nearly thirty years old.
#48 to #47 - Whytemane (01/30/2013) [-]
....You really only see what you want to see don't you? "Incredible Disrepair?" Dude. I guarantee those dudes treat those guns like babies. If it was in "incredible disrepair" they'd be dangerous to fire, would likely look like trash, and likely would not be allowed to fire on the range. ALSO, how the **** do you think FPS Russia gets his weapons? Those are CURRENT MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. And I guarantee you NONE of them are owned by the military, they're privately owned. Know your **** about guns before you make stupid comments you ignorant twat.
User avatar #49 to #48 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
No gun in that video is in common use by the modern day military. You can look them all up, individually, yourself. The closest thing to a modern gun in that video was what I believe to be a civilian variant Barret .50 cal Anti-Material rifle (and I could be vastly wrong on that one). You can not get current military technology for private use, it is against the law. No weapon present at that shoot was made after 1986, and the assault weapon ban will not affect any weapon present there. You can feel free to look up the federal statues on the subject yourself, and feel free to contact FPSRussia on the subject. I am well aware of who he is, and I know all the loopholes he has to go through to get his footage. It isn't pretty, and he is an incredibly lucky individual to get to do the things that he does.
User avatar #50 to #49 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Let me correct myself. No fully automatic weapon or artillery piece present in that shoot was made after 1986. The sniper rifles (and anti-material rifles) are a different matter, and not subject to the discussion regardless because the assault weapon ban doesn't address them.
User avatar #51 to #50 - lyiat ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
I do not know the laws regarding sniper rifles or anti-material rifles, don't ask me. This is a discussion about fully automatic machine guns, which, again, are illegal if manufactured past 1986 and do not enter civilian hands under any circumstances. There is only one loophole I can possibly think of, and even then I think it'd be illegal. That would be someone retiring from the military, having the proper permits for machine gun weaponry under government statutes, and taking their service weapon home with them (which is possible for a fee).
User avatar #93 to #51 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
The .50 cal Barrett the military uses IS available for civilian purchase and is legal to own:
http://ww w.barrett. net/firearms/m107a1 The most up-to-date one starts at about 12,000$
#44 to #43 - Whytemane has deleted their comment [-]
#39 to #14 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
2nd amendment was so that we may protect ourselves from the government becoming too large (which they already have) we need assault weapons.
#33 to #14 - brettd (01/30/2013) [-]
I call ******** on that one. He wants to get rid of all semi-automatic weaponry, which would include pistols and hunting rifles. Not to mention the limit on magazine clips.
#32 to #14 - hoodedmetal (01/30/2013) [-]
The AWB (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) defines Assault Weapons in 3 categories, Pistols, Shotguns, and Rifles and that is one of the acts that's in the air at the moment. so He is wanting to ban Pistols, Shotguns, Civilian Semi Auto Version of Military Rifles (And the Military Version obviously ) and their sale but i can own one legally afterwards, just not sell or give away without some red tape. and their business to own them is the Second Amendment but ill let another person argue that.

User avatar #19 to #14 - diegrammernazis (01/30/2013) [-]
but the current jurisdiction on what is a military assault rifle is any gun that looks scary. (+ the obvious other reasons)
#17 to #14 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
God, the stupidity. It burns.
Protip: The second amendment was enacted so the people are on the same level of weaponry as the military.
#35 to #17 - brettd has deleted their comment [-]
#21 to #17 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
that was in the 1700's when we could be invaded by england I think that won't happen now so it's kind of useless to have military grade weapons
#57 to #21 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
It wasn't to protect us from England, it was to protect us from the newly formed US government lest the government get too power hungry or overstep it's constitutional limits.
#24 to #21 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter. It wasn't made to protect against England; rather, it was created to protect the American people the American government.
#31 to #24 - sketchfactor (01/30/2013) [-]
Well if it gives civilians the rights to have the same level or weaponry as the military, then we better start distributing tanks.
Well if it gives civilians the rights to have the same level or weaponry as the military, then we better start distributing tanks.
User avatar #94 to #31 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
You can legally own a tank, and in most states drive it if you have street treads.
User avatar #86 to #31 - Zarke (01/30/2013) [-]
Gladly. Sounds pretty ******* fun, actually.
#34 to #31 - anonymous (01/30/2013) [-]
Tanks would be impractical in urban warfare, and buying jet fuel for an Abrams would be fairly expensive, not to mention the cost of HE or AP shells.
But it I could afford one, I know I sure as hell would own one.
#38 to #34 - Azz (01/30/2013) [-]
MFW my girlfriend's dad has a Bulldog tank sitting in one of their three barns...
User avatar #11 to #7 - fasthink (01/30/2013) [-]
for saying magical fairy princessistration? Naw, FJ got rid of word filters like a year ago,,, they kicked ass
#77 to #11 - dudu (01/30/2013) [-]
magical fairy princess? where are you?!
#15 to #11 - misledzach (01/30/2013) [-]
I miss those
User avatar #8 to #7 - joekooldash (01/30/2013) [-]
the **** ? FJ just trolled me.
User avatar #6 - northleech (01/30/2013) [-]
Considering that the burglar doesnt have a gun either, you can most likely defend yourself with something else.
User avatar #177 to #6 - dharkmoswen ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
Because criminals follow laws?
#9 to #6 - blackgecko (01/30/2013) [-]
why would the burglar follow the gun laws if he's breaking into someones house?
User avatar #36 to #9 - qtipthegreat (01/30/2013) [-]
If the robber had a gun the guy wouldn't have given two ***** about the threat then.
User avatar #10 to #9 - northleech (01/30/2013) [-]
How did the burglar get his hands on a gun in the first place?
User avatar #119 to #10 - sketchE ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
you do realise how saturated the united states is with gund right now right? many of them are not owned by who their registered to since many dont worry about changing registration when transferring guns since it isnt necessary. if the government decided to take away guns they would come to me looking for a mossberg 500 sig tactical .22 and semi auto thompson. this doesnt include my henry repeater and berretta 92fs. the first three rifles would never be found because i sold them. now do this for the, oh, milions of guns out there that are exactly the same way.
User avatar #323 to #119 - northleech (01/30/2013) [-]
It's pretty sad that it turned out that way in the first place...
User avatar #335 to #323 - sketchE ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
it was necessary to an extent. the US needs guns almost. because we are such a large nation calling the cops isnt always the best option. police may be miles away but you need immediate protection. guns are also one of the few things that people think we need to know who owns each one
User avatar #336 to #335 - northleech (01/31/2013) [-]
Yeah, but all the guns didn't appear out of thin air. They got made for both the criminals and civilians. If there is an issue with the police not being there when needed, maybe open more police stations? More jobs aswell.
User avatar #337 to #336 - sketchE ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
its not that simple. police are paid by the government. almost every state and city government out their is over or close to budget. they dont have room to budge. we also live in a society that glorifies criminals and demonizes the police force. guns are never made to kill innocents. the manufacturer knew that maybe this will end up in the hands of someone bad but their more likely to end up in the hands of someone good willing to stop the bad. also if your concerned about jobs what about all the people employed by the firearm manufacturing and maintaining industry?
User avatar #338 to #337 - northleech (01/31/2013) [-]
How did this start? How did the nation start to glorify criminals in the first place? What went so wrong? I honestly have no clue
User avatar #340 to #338 - sketchE ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
the media. i think around the 80s 90s is when it got really bad.about the time rodney king and rampart happened. songs like **** the police and other things. half the people i know say thy hate cops with a passion. ask half of them they have no reason ask the other half its because they got caught doing something wrong. the most popular games movies and music are about criminals. then the media sensationalizes thse large scale shootings making kids that feel like they want to be remembered and want to kill people et the idea to go out in ablaze of glory
#16 to #10 - misledzach (01/30/2013) [-]
The same way you would get pot. Through a dealer.
 Friends (0)