x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#281 - roliga (06/20/2013) [+] (4 replies)
You see the thing is people are are anti-gun are not actually anti-gun. They're anti-people defending themselves. To takes guns from civilians in America you are going to need guns, specifically for police. And those guns are going to have to be taken by force from the people. This is going to result in law enforcement officers being killed in resistance, law enforcement officers throwing down their badges and not violating the constitution by taking those guns, and it's going to involves the senseless murder of good law abiding citizens who own guns, good law abiding citizens being thrown in prison which will then break apart families, lead children and adults to a life of crime, and eventually it would lead to something similar to the Syrian rebels fighting their government. So no one is anti-gun, they're just anti-law abiding american civilians defending themselves and their loved ones.
You see the thing is people are are anti-gun are not actually anti-gun. They're anti-people defending themselves. To takes guns from civilians in America you are going to need guns, specifically for police. And those guns are going to have to be taken by force from the people. This is going to result in law enforcement officers being killed in resistance, law enforcement officers throwing down their badges and not violating the constitution by taking those guns, and it's going to involves the senseless murder of good law abiding citizens who own guns, good law abiding citizens being thrown in prison which will then break apart families, lead children and adults to a life of crime, and eventually it would lead to something similar to the Syrian rebels fighting their government. So no one is anti-gun, they're just anti-law abiding american civilians defending themselves and their loved ones.
User avatar #320 to #281 - tylosaurus ONLINE (06/20/2013) [-]
"You see the thing is people are are anti-gun are not actually anti-gun. They're anti-people defending themselves."

Hah, now that's one obnoxious statement.
User avatar #242 - PubLandlord (06/20/2013) [+] (5 replies)
Funny that the NRA and their supporters can't even see to comprehend that there even though there are positives there are negatives, and the negatives are pretty ******* obvious, but any attempt to to curb human deaths is seen as an attack on some apparent freedom

You can't have surface to air anything yet think you could take on the government who spends more than the next 10 countries combined on their military
The whole tyrannical government argument for guns is a joke and anyone who believes that gun ownership is needed to protect themselves from genocide is seriously retarded.

hit me up with some of your retarded american arguments faggots
User avatar #252 to #242 - roliga (06/20/2013) [-]
Moving this response to this comment -

You do realize majority of the US military is right winged, pro guns, men who made an oath to defend the constitution? If the government breaks the constitution 90% of the US military would desert them. There's 80,000,000 gun owners in America vs the MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller US military and the MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller US military after 90% of their members have deserted. Jesus Christ just look at Syria, they didn't even have guns to begin with and they're kicking seven shades of **** into their government.
User avatar #217 - PubLandlord (06/20/2013) [+] (6 replies)
Wasn't the well trained militia supposed to be a "dads army" or home front style thing, not just allowing anyone a weapon
#227 to #217 - roliga (06/20/2013) [-]
No, when breaking down the sentence the militia is the people, as in civilians, not a government regulated militia. Well regulated as in regulated by the people, not government.
No, when breaking down the sentence the militia is the people, as in civilians, not a government regulated militia. Well regulated as in regulated by the people, not government.
#205 - monkeyyninja (06/20/2013) [+] (5 replies)
> Gun Control
> Gun Control
User avatar #201 - Awesomecarrot (06/20/2013) [+] (6 replies)
How about this:
You can have all the guns you want. Assualt rifles, hand guns, whatever.
But ammo? That'll be $2000 for 5 small bullets. More for larger ones.
This way, when you're confronted with a life-threatening situation,
you can use a bullet to save your life, but you won't want to waste
thousands of dollars shooting someone you don't like. And the people
who decide they want to shoot up a school won't be able to afford to.
User avatar #230 to #201 - roliga (06/20/2013) [-]
Do you have any idea how easy it is to just make a bullet?
#182 - beerterror (06/20/2013) [+] (46 replies)
>people who think banning guns would take them off the streets   
>people who think in america people get shot more because it's easy to get a gun   
>people in general
>people who think banning guns would take them off the streets
>people who think in america people get shot more because it's easy to get a gun
>people in general
User avatar #289 to #282 - pebar (06/20/2013) [-]
There's a lot of history behind gun ownership in the US.
+2
#21 - jaergerjaquez **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #220 - cowboybebop (06/20/2013) [-]
The entire reason I even bother with these kinds of posts is the comments section.

They are a perfect example of how NOT to be good debaters.

It's excellent for me to take the advice and learn from the failings of others as a debater.

Seriously.

You guys aren't convincing anyone either way.


Final word: look at my username.
User avatar #68 - picamix (06/20/2013) [+] (1 reply)
but then you gotta think, if he didnt have one they wouldnt need one
#57 - baconfattie (06/20/2013) [-]
That guy getting the assault rifle if weapons were ilegal would be freaking freaking hard, and could get caught in the way and sentenced to prison.

#54 - eclecticparadigm **User deleted account** (06/20/2013) [+] (7 replies)
Yes, I'm sure if anyone in the room has a gun will able to use it when anon is pointing a gun at his face. I'm sure that guy is fast enough and will be able to shoot anon before anon shoots him back. Yes, yes, when he pulls out the gun, anonymous won't notice him taking his gun out. Anon pulling the trigger is slower than the guy pulling the gun out, cocks it and shoots anon. Everyone's like Han Solo in the real world. Or he can deflect anon's bullets like in the movie Wanted and protect everyone in the room. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Yes, I'm sure if anyone in the room has a gun will able to use it when anon is pointing a gun at his face. I'm sure that guy is fast enough and will be able to shoot anon before anon shoots him back. Yes, yes, when he pulls out the gun, anonymous won't notice him taking his gun out. Anon pulling the trigger is slower than the guy pulling the gun out, cocks it and shoots anon. Everyone's like Han Solo in the real world. Or he can deflect anon's bullets like in the movie Wanted and protect everyone in the room. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
User avatar #29 - fjfunnyjunkfj (06/20/2013) [-]
>concealed assault rifle
>witchcraft.jpg
User avatar #13 - ranzoray (06/20/2013) [+] (4 replies)
It would make more sense for him to pull out something perfectly legal, like, say, a wood axe or a butcher knife
User avatar #5 - cowinspace ONLINE (06/19/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Person pulls weapon on my group. Gun nut in my group proceeds to attempt to pull his weapon out. Gun nut gets shot, the rest of us with our hands up are still alive. Person that pulled the gun thanks us for helping him fill out his "shoot a douchebag" quota for the day.

If someone has a gun on you, you shut the **** up and do what they say. You might lose you wallet or car, but it's a damn sight better than losing your life. And before the dick suckers complain, If the person pulling a gun on you intends to kill you then you are already dead. There is reason why duels weren't fought with one duelist having the advantage of a drawn and ready weapon, they would always win.
User avatar #10 to #5 - swifterly (06/20/2013) [-]
People ban guns. Person in your group pulls out legally obtained gun. Person proceeds to shoot and kill 2 of you. The rest of you are with your hands up still alive. Person that pulled out gun thanks you for helping him fill out his "defenseless people" quota of the day.

I someone practices unholstering a gun, they can do it very fast. You would be able to unholster and it shoot who ever is trying to kill or rob you or your group if you do it fast enough and make sure when you do it they focused on something else. You could pull a gun like Clint Eastwood in his movies with enough practice.
User avatar #4 - olmesy (06/19/2013) [+] (6 replies)
But... guns laws would mean he probably wouldn't have the gun in the first place
User avatar #216 to #50 - amateriandarknut (06/20/2013) [-]
"Probably" isn't good enough when there's nothing to defend yourself against the 30-49% chance that you could be dead wrong.
#276 - anonymous (06/20/2013) [+] (1 reply)
How about we charge less for actual guns but like $1000 for a bullet. At least that way there would be no innocent bystanders
#264 - anonymous (06/20/2013) [-]
it's lonely in the politics board
User avatar #167 - theblacksheep (06/20/2013) [-]
People who need to trick out their weapons with tactical **** are just like people who go to Africa and hunt elephants or other "exotic game"...
#166 - anonymous (06/20/2013) [-]
Are we not gonna talk about how this guy concealed an assault rifle on his person...
 Friends (0)