Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#1076 - bazda
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Banning guns protects kids? How are those gun-free zones working for you?
#1084 to #1076 - anon id: 2f18cb04
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
About as good as those demilitarized zones...
#990 - mkchillin
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
This girl has her finger on the trigger, no strap to sling the gun over her shoulder with, and may or may not have it on safety

OH WAIT, stupid me, it's the gunthat is the issue at hand, not the people and their actions in regards to them__
User avatar #1015 to #990 - krobeles
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
So we're gonna go with the "Guns dont kill people. People kill people." arguement?

Honestly, i can hardly see the logic behind this one. Sure, people kill people, but people without guns are much less likely to kill people as they dont have the means to instantly end somebody's life with the snap of a finger. It takes a much more insane and deranged mind to bash someones head in with a hammer/fists with gouge out his insides with a knife.
With a gun, it just takes the snap of a finger. An instant of bad judgement from an otherwise compleatly decent person, and bang. Dead guy.

Besides that, other than filling some childish need to feel like you have some tangible power, what purpose does having firearms available in such large quantities really serve?
If you'de like to go hunting you can still do that, if gun laws are tightened.
#1031 to #1015 - anon id: 77635bd6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people. People with moustaches kill people.
User avatar #998 to #990 - moldypubes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Mag is also in. Finger can be on the trigger for learning purposes/posing if the mag is out, breach cleared and weapon on safe.
#1000 to #998 - anon id: 978f9647
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED
User avatar #1312 to #1000 - moldypubes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
No way there comes a point where the trainee needs to stop being an idiot and train by switching mags, positions and getting adjusted to the feel
User avatar #1005 to #1000 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I have to pull the trigger on my Glock to field strip it.
#1056 to #1005 - bazda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
So? Clear it, safe direction, there is nothing unsafe about that.
#1036 to #990 - tylosaurus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Imagine if the gun wasn't available.

Then you wouldn't have to worry about the people being the issue.
#1066 to #1036 - anon id: af3456bc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
"Lets just keep teaching them to be scared of it rather than informed." ******* pleb.
User avatar #1075 to #1066 - tylosaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
What are you on about?

Can't hear you over the amount of safety and people with no guns here.
#1054 to #1036 - anon id: 978f9647
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
too late for that... any regulation from this point could only make things worse
User avatar #1069 to #1054 - tylosaurus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
That's what you get for wanting your "freedom" in form of deathly weapons.
#894 - anon id: f34df220
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
good thing you have to be 21 to buy an assault weapon..........
User avatar #923 to #894 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
That doesn't stop kids from finding their parent's guns, taking it to school and killing other kids does it?
User avatar #944 to #923 - amsel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
People breaking the law are -BREAKING THE LAW-. Please explain to me how banning assault rifles will stop someone from killing people. They're either going to buy the exact same gun illegally (which many of them currently do; IE the high-cap magazine in the aurora shooting) or find another way to kill people (which many of them currently do, IE the Boston marathon bombings). Banning weapons only affects the people who already follow the law, and they're not who you're worried about.
User avatar #946 to #944 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Why do you need an assault rifle? Why do you need anything more than a pistol for self defense and a hunting rifle for hunting.
User avatar #951 to #946 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
what if the criminal has body armor (it's actually pretty common)
people hunt with ar-15s all the time
User avatar #947 to #946 - amsel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The second amendment was put in to make sure that the people as a whole remain stronger than the government, thus avoiding the possibility of a dictatorship. It has nothing to do with hunting.
User avatar #948 to #947 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
When was the Bill of Rights written?
User avatar #962 to #948 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The founders never imagined tv which can sway people's political opinions to those who have the most money, nor the internet which can defame people rapidly. The first amendment still applies to those, right?
User avatar #953 to #948 - amsel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
If you're gonna make an "assault rifles didn't exist in the 1800s" argument, it's rather irrelevant. The entire bill of rights goes after the same purpose of "the government should be limited in power and the people should be stronger."
User avatar #902 to #894 - pebar
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
18 in most states for rifles/shotguns
21 for handguns

just sayin'
#832 - ARandomSpoon
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
That bitch has terrible trigger safety.
User avatar #857 to #832 - ShadeElement
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
You sir are a genius.
In one simple sentence you have both made me laugh, and pointed out that people who are opposed to firearms are utterly ignorant about them.

I salute you.
#1308 to #857 - ARandomSpoon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
I'm glad brother :D I'm here to make you laugh :D
User avatar #807 - Schwarzenegger
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Liberal cocksucker.
#818 to #807 - SrslyWtf
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Liberal means free, dont all you Americans preach freedom? Why you hating on the freedom, bro?
User avatar #822 to #818 - pebar
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Liberal in America definitely does not mean free.....
#825 to #822 - SrslyWtf
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The English dictionary doesn't change for each English speaking country, i'm afraid
User avatar #865 to #825 - newsmyrna
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Actually yes it does their is no formal body that decides what is a part of the English language and what is not, which is strange most languages do have a formal body that decides that. Anyway digress the closet thing too that system for English is dictionaries. The UK uses Oxford and the US uses Webster. Plus it is quite obvious to any English speaker that there are differences between the way English is spoken US/Canada, UK, SA, NZ/AU.
User avatar #855 to #825 - wallbuilder
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
In this context I believe "liberal" refers to a political party or ideal.
User avatar #826 to #818 - roliga
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Liberty means free, liberal is quite the opposite
#829 to #818 - Schwarzenegger
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #351 - zukowashere
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
A Kinder egg will never save my life, a gun would.
User avatar #357 to #351 - defeats
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Having a gun is more likely to get you killed than save your life.
User avatar #363 to #357 - bitchitroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
attempting to use an illegal firearm to harm another person is more likely to get you killed*


you had a few misspellings
User avatar #379 to #357 - defeats
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
User avatar #270 - lightninghedgehog
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
dat trigger discipline.....
User avatar #261 - krasnogvardiech
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Bad stance
No trigger discipline
Rifle's stock is too big for a child to comfortably use
Most likely a paintball or BB gun

4/10. Would not take to firing range.
User avatar #215 - YoursTruley
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
M4....not...not legal in the first place....i dont know what they are trying to get at....all assault rifles have been banned...i dont......wtf?

also...people can kill with bombs too...as we have seen...problem isn't guns...it's people

dontdotdot
User avatar #246 to #215 - catsareforcancer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
"M4"

...

Son, that there is an AR15. Albeit, one of the fully-automatic variety. I also heard that the gun legislations never passed so please point me to the source where assault rifles have been banned.
User avatar #281 to #246 - YoursTruley
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
i do think that is still an m-4 judging by her size and how big it is compared to her, m4s, as you know are smaller, and not banned i guess but:

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.


and seeing how an assult rifle is defined b being able to be full-auto, the above applies. (yes the 19994 ban did expire but the other did not)
User avatar #313 to #281 - catsareforcancer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
One could also argue semantics, though, what is the legal definition of a "machine gun" and "assault rifle." I did hear from somewhere that the term assault rifle was simply some arbitrary term used by people looking to ban the same type of weapons the average american can buy today.

When I hear of a "machine gun" I think of a crew-served weapon. To make this clear, I'm in no way against you, just trying to get that part out of the way before it comes up.
User avatar #337 to #313 - YoursTruley
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
no i understand, but the legal definition from the encyclopedia of Britannica is in short
"An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

the thing is, is people dont understand the differences between assault rifles and rifles that are modified to look as such.

banning them will do nothing because they are basically already super hard to get.
it is honestly like no lawmaker or lawyers have done their homework.

#416 to #281 - dildzmiester
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Not quite sure but ya it does look more like a carbine than a rifle, could be an M4
#230 to #215 - savirleo
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Didn't you hear? A sniper rifle killed some people with the help of a white van and a human
User avatar #232 to #230 - YoursTruley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
ha!
#239 to #232 - savirleo
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Trust me, I'm a journalist
#180 - ataeru
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I hate this juxtaposition ideology.

If you're going to do that, you might as well say
"we won't sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety."
"Why not pools?"
"Why not cars?"
"Why not doctors?"
"Why not food?"
"Why not sex?"
User avatar #209 to #180 - tangentialrex
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Well, why do you need a baby-killing tactical assault penis with a 50,000 sperm-cell clip?
#708 to #209 - ataeru
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
What're you talking about man? that does ****. I'm talking about HIV chemical warfare! You have literally a pea shooter in comparison.
User avatar #23 - mynameislego
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Have fun yelling Freeze! and pointing a Kinder Chocolate Egg at the individual/s that break into your homes.
User avatar #783 - slimscheibe
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
**** THIS POST YOU DEMOCRATIC ANTI PUSSY FAGGOT
#662 - atkissonbr
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
User avatar #652 - marooned
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because, assault weapons AREN'T FOR ******* KIDS.
#656 to #652 - anon id: e86c286e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Assault weapons is not a factual classification of firearms. It is a catch catch phrase term used by gun grabbers as a blanket term for guns that they want banned, many of which share NO functional or mechanical similarities.
User avatar #672 to #656 - hoodyninja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
THANK YOU
User avatar #658 to #656 - marooned
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Weapons aren't for kids*
#665 to #658 - anon id: e86c286e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, I disagree. A kid behind the wheel supervised in a close course is no less dangerous then a kid with a firearm on a closed range with a trained range master. They will never learn to respect the car OR the firearm unless you teach them about it.
#693 to #665 - anon id: e86c286e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Someones upset, What's the matter don't like facts so you need to thumb down?
#644 - brisineo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Here's a little thing to think about...   
   
ALL "mass shootings" (where the assailant was carrying a firearm of some sort, with a total of 4+ civilian casualties as a result) since 1950 were in labeled Gun Free Zones.  (Meaning that it is illegal for a civilian to carry a firearm into that zone, licensed or not)   
   
There have been several more attempts at mass shootings that fail to be recorded in the statistics that gun control advocates use, because they tried shooting up a place where their targets could shoot back.   
   
Also, I'd just want you to take note, the last time we tried to ban something that was a pretty large part of society, (ie the Prohibition amendment) the black market boomed and everyone was buying it illegally to the point where we had to stop because it only made things worse.  America, unfortunately, is in the unique position in being a black market central hub, where banning something as a whole (even something small such as high capacity magazines) is entirely ineffective, and the only true way proven to counter this is literally putting it at gunpoint of people who buy guns to defend themselves.
Here's a little thing to think about...

ALL "mass shootings" (where the assailant was carrying a firearm of some sort, with a total of 4+ civilian casualties as a result) since 1950 were in labeled Gun Free Zones. (Meaning that it is illegal for a civilian to carry a firearm into that zone, licensed or not)

There have been several more attempts at mass shootings that fail to be recorded in the statistics that gun control advocates use, because they tried shooting up a place where their targets could shoot back.

Also, I'd just want you to take note, the last time we tried to ban something that was a pretty large part of society, (ie the Prohibition amendment) the black market boomed and everyone was buying it illegally to the point where we had to stop because it only made things worse. America, unfortunately, is in the unique position in being a black market central hub, where banning something as a whole (even something small such as high capacity magazines) is entirely ineffective, and the only true way proven to counter this is literally putting it at gunpoint of people who buy guns to defend themselves.
User avatar #657 to #644 - secretdestroyers
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Every law gets broken at at some point so, by your own logic, why bother having laws at all?

Law enforcement exists for a reason....not all cops screw people over.
#686 to #657 - brisineo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'd rather have armed citizens to prevent an attack than to rely on police to stop the shooter after he's killed several people.

But I'm not saying all laws are hindrances. Law maintains order and productivity in society, and of course, a criminal disrupts that because laws are irrelevant to them. We stopped the prohibition act because we couldn't know where the alcohol was going and who was making/owning it, and that was a severe risk.

All I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be outrageously difficult for a legal citizen to obtain a higher capacity weapon when outlaws can get them with ease or simply steal it from a legal citizen. It provides a distinct disadvantage, and more casualties would be the result. (Refer to post #649)
User avatar #696 to #657 - ponyfcker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
>not all cops screw people over

You're true on some occasions. My friend was caught smoking weed, this is in Idaho so the cops are strict about that, and the cop give him a lecture on drug abuse and how it can ruin your life, then he asked for a joint and dropped him off at his house telling him to stay in school and get his work done, then have time for weed.
#654 to #644 - superblargh
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I didn't even read the comment; your gif was just awesome.
I didn't even read the comment; your gif was just awesome.
#595 - atkissonbr
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
*********
#237 - akatsukipain
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
shes gonna need that when zombies come......
#226 - rattymanbryden
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
How about we teach kids to be safe with guns and food? To start she needs to take her finger off the ******* trigger and learn how to handle a weapon properly.
#216 - mikeW
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
How about we just let them both be legal?
How about we just let them both be legal?
#127 - bendingtimesucks **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]