Basically. . Even: time something really i hall happens. Maple my out Int safety. and the government answers by taking rights may from good neon's." Penn Gillet Basically Even: time something really i hall happens Maple my out Int safety and the government answers by taking rights may from good neon's " Penn Gillet
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (195)
[ 195 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - kazorkthedork
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
why do we post these pictures on the funnyjunk and not print them out and stick them on bulletin boards or telephone polls?
User avatar #2 to #1 - mikepetru [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
most people on the street are too preoccupied with where they are going or what they are doing and do not have the patience to stop and read these. On the internet, not only do more people see these, but also they can engage in discussion with an infinite amount of people.
User avatar #3 to #2 - kazorkthedork
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
but to higher ranking citizens see them here?
User avatar #4 to #3 - mikepetru [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
eventually. One of the rules of media is that everything from the margin moves to the center. With enough people talking about and reblogging it and such, it eventually becomes public discussion
User avatar #5 to #4 - kazorkthedork
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I still can't help but feel that our opinions are being flattened under the unbearable weight of american conventional media
User avatar #6 to #5 - mikepetru [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
if people turned off the t.v. and refused to engage in media that did not serve their interests. Media companies would be forced to give us the information we desire or go bankrupt.
User avatar #8 to #6 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
sadly most of the world believes the information they are handed as the complete truth. we are but a small margin of society
User avatar #7 to #6 - mikepetru [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
meant to be a comma woops
User avatar #9 to #1 - damnpolice
Reply +115 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Because we're on funnyjunk, plus its cold outside
User avatar #12 to #9 - thepyras
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
*the funnyjunk


I am joking.
#25 - triarii
Reply +41 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Everytime there is a shooting, the government wants to take away our guns.
User avatar #26 to #25 - joaonat
Reply -19 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
What if there is a massive orgy?!Will the government ban sex?
User avatar #27 to #26 - triarii
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I don't see orgies harming anyone
#69 to #27 - blbrian
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Damn right
Damn right
#22 - jasonthedragon
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
yeah, you are damn right! all those highly armed good people who won't be able to protect themselfs against all those other good highly armed people
#31 to #22 - johnshepherd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Actually, it's that they won't be able to protect themselves against bad people, like shooters.
#53 to #31 - anon id: c8d65107
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
yes, because all of those children were protected by guns, not gunned down by them.
#61 to #53 - johnshepherd
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
They weren't protected by guns because it was a "gun-free zone," which makes it a perfect target for shootings. Nobody's disputing that those kids were killed by a gunman, but what is subject to argument is whether civilians should have been allowed to have guns since, for example, the teachers, would have been able to defend the children had guns been allowed.

The children weren't protected by guns since it was illegal to have any in the area. Your argument is, essentially, that making guns more illegal for civilians will defend them against criminals. I say that letting civilians have guns is a better defense.
User avatar #127 to #61 - Screenshotman
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Fun fact.
The average police response time in the USA is 5-6 minutes.
The response time of a trained, armed civilian is 2-4 seconds.

Armed civilians do more good than bad.
#153 to #127 - leharpy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
More fun facts.
In china 22 kids got knifed the same day of the shooting, banning guns just makes people use explosives(INCREDIBLY easy and fun to make) or knives/other improv weapons. Yet I'm still surprised people aren't trying to ban knives and sharpened sticks.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
ALSO, near Portland, Oregon a mass shooting was STOPPED by a concealed carrier. Of course there's no ******* mass media coverage over it. Guns, by last count, stopped around 2.5 MILLION crimes each year according to a study by"Gary Kleck, Ph.D. professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee 'Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America'" and either the CIA or FBI or some other ABC agency said earlier this year that more gun control, if anything, raised gun crime. (Google didn't show the quotes I was looking for on this. Google also didn't show the ******* Clackamas mall story, bias censorship much? They already don't show gun sales.)
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.htm l
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm
#131 to #61 - anon id: 882be73e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
plains should not be a gun free zone then, imagine a muslim terrorist gets inside, I say we give the right to bear an ak 47 to anyone who boards a plane
#132 to #131 - johnshepherd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
First off, if you're going to post, man up and log in. Stand by your beliefs.

Second, you can, it requires a special license, but you can carry weapons on a plane.

Also, you are taking my statement out of context and arguing for giving weapons to enemy combatants, which is the polar opposite of what I am saying. If we are going to debate, I'd appreciate it if you gave me the same respect that I give you.
User avatar #48 - allamericandude
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Education is more powerful than any amount of preventative legislation the government could dream of. Education will end the violence in the streets. Education will keep kids out of gangs and drugs. Education will give us a healthier, more stable economy.

But we Americans don't want long term solutions. We want a better country, we just don't want to work for it. We want superficial, quick-fix solutions so we can pat ourselves on the back, blame one person over another for what went wrong, and go to sleep at night.

Gun violence is a symptom, not the disease.
User avatar #136 - alfjnn
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Why is everyone bitching about TSA?
Have you people never been to an airport?
It's "Search with Wand, Take off shoes, good to go"
They don't ******* rape you.

And about gun control.

I have no strong feelings either which way, but I will point out that, statistically speaking, countries (such as the UK) with tighter restrictions on fire arms have drastically less gun related deaths than countries without them (ie: United States)

There is no real reason for every american to own a class 5 Assault Rifle.

If anything, I agree with our gun laws here in New York City:
Psychiatric Testing every two years, along with drug testing, and eye exams.

User avatar #137 to #136 - alfjnn
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
For the record, Dylan & Eric, Holmes, and the most Recent shooter acquired their firearms legally.
#151 to #137 - ogloko
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
the most recent one stole them from his mother
User avatar #152 to #151 - alfjnn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Easily Accessible, my point remains the Same.

New York states that all weapons should be locked in a safe outside of the home that only the owner of said weapon can access.

I tend to agree with this.
#157 to #152 - ogloko
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
its still ridiculous, a gun is a tool. no mater what laws are passed people will still get guns. there will still be tragedies like this. there is no need to take away guns from everyone in order to have a slightly better chance of stopping outliers. there is a gun safe in my basement, i know where the combination is, but i dont blow away first graders. this is a mental health issue
User avatar #159 to #157 - alfjnn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
No ****.
Hence
>Psychiatric Testing every two years

No one wants to ban guns, people just want to restrict them to the mentally healthy.
#173 to #159 - ogloko
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
it a slippery slope. then what are the standards of "mentally stable". people who own guns shouldn't be assumed criminals.
there is no way to stop these things, yet politicians will write stricter laws in attempt to stop them, and only infringe on our constitutional rights.
User avatar #177 to #173 - alfjnn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Testing you to see if you're insane doesn't impede on any constitutional right.

When was the last time you heard about a killing spree in New York?

#183 to #177 - ogloko
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
1) i would view that as a violation of the 4th amendment
2) a "killing spree" refers to a person killing people at different locations in a short period of time and are extremely rare on a nation wide scale.
3) 18% of non-NYC violent crimes were gun related in 2011
point: you cannot legislate morality or common-sense. to do so would only infringe on the rights of the people
User avatar #184 to #183 - alfjnn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
But it has been Legislated.
And the most part, people here are totally fine with it.

There is no controversy about being psychologically tested to own a weapon.

You even have to psychologically tested to join the military or become a cop.

So what, Being a police officer, or a soldier is unconstitutional as well?
#185 to #184 - ogloko
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
i never even hinted at making that point, thats dumb. those are government employees and the government has the right to test them however they want, or as per terms of employment. to test a private citizen every 2 years? i see that as an unreasonable search and an ongoing investigation where no crime is being committed.
User avatar #188 to #185 - alfjnn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Are citizens not members of this government?

If you reside in the united states, you are part of the government, or so National consent decrees.

No one has had a problem with the psychiatric testing in this state, and it's worked out well.

It impedes on no right to be tested.

Are Aptitude tests for children, and psychological evaluations unconstitutional as well?

Owning a weapon implies responsibility, you need to be responsible to own a weapon. Want to prove you're responsible? Take the test every two years.

It's worked for the past decade, and has prevented suicides and murders alike.
#193 to #188 - ogloko
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
fine, let the government test the gun owners. then they will test the car owners, jut to make sure they are stable and wont be running anyone over. where would it end? also how much will it cost. the state of new york is already 300 billion in the hole. if you give the government an inch, they will take 10 miles. thats how it has been since the dawn of civilization. is not really about gun control, its about people control
User avatar #204 to #193 - alfjnn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
But they do test Car owners. Eye Exams and the like..

Are you new to America?

I have no problem with the government controlling me, it changes nothing in my life, nor does it change anything in yours.

I mean ****. What can't you do today that you were able to do on September 10th 2001?
User avatar #168 to #137 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I know that Dylan & Harris had someone else buy their guns for them, so it wasn't a legal purchase of firearms.
User avatar #170 to #168 - alfjnn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
No, it was still a legal purchase, they just acquired the weapons not-so-legally.
User avatar #172 to #170 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
My point here is that you're previous statement is wrong. The firearms were acquired illegally.
User avatar #175 to #172 - alfjnn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
This is true. I retract my earlier statement.
I do however stand by my point that the purchase itself was legal.
#138 to #137 - apocalypseboyz
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Yes, and in the us it's very very easy to acquire firearms.
#161 to #136 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
You make good points, but I only want to add that when a country enacts gun regulation policies, the best that happens is no change or a slight rise in crime rate, while the worst result can mean a drastic rise in crime rate. Gun regulation policies have never worked from what I have seen.
User avatar #163 to #161 - alfjnn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I find that anything that works in other nations, tends to not work in the united states. This goes for everything from Nationalized Health Care, to Weapon Restrictions, to marital laws.

Like i said. I agree with New York's Restrictions, they've been working pretty well for the last twenty years, when was the last time you heard about a killing spree in New York City? (Inb4 9/11. Planes aren't guns)
User avatar #165 to #163 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Very true sir. I especially like the required psychiatric testing every two years. That seems like it would be a good thing to apply on a national level.
User avatar #167 to #165 - alfjnn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Well Yeah.
It's also a little expensive, but it's worked out well for the most part, and the random searches here aren't bad either. They'll pat you down if you seem like you're carrying a weapon, if they find nothing, you're good to go.

All the overt liberals on this site makes it look like the government rapes you and fingers you if you look at them funny.

Clearly that isn't the case.
#90 - SilentRaver
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
What people don't realize is that gun control isn't the only issue. If the government doesn't allow the basic right to bear arms, people would proclaim that their personal safety is being risked, allowing more regulations to be passed in response.
>TSA caliber security at schools and populated buildings
>Touching your assholes
>Busting you for other trivial things that are "illegal" but not at all dangerous
>More cops walking the streets searching for anything to ticket you with in order to fund the huge police force
>Cameras and voice recorders everywhere
>The government may give themselves the right to wire-tap your home without warrant
>And much more

It isn't too far fetched, it'll be easy to do because everyone will be okay with it since it's "for their safety". It may not be the case in other countries with gun control, but look at how much our government spends on defense compared to the world, and look at how much more easily Americans are consumed by fears instilled by the media.
#96 to #90 - stiffbeefyone
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #115 to #90 - Lambda
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
The government already has the right to wire tap your phone without a warrant.
The won't, of course, because you aren't important enough. But they can.
#98 to #90 - stiffbeefyone
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Read Morgan Freeman's thoughts on this.

""It’s because of the way the media reports it. Turn on the news and see how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single 'victim' of Columbine?" The statement concludes, “So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or maternity ward next.”
User avatar #109 to #98 - garyleneville
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
He didn't say that.
#108 to #98 - bobbysnobby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Thats being passed around all over the place I have yet to see a credible source.

Whats yours?
User avatar #111 to #108 - stiffbeefyone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I just looked it up, and i saw it wasn't by him. I give you that. But it does not mean it's not another point of view to see. Regardless if it was Morgan Freeman or not. You can't tell me it doesn't make sense.
#116 to #111 - bobbysnobby
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
We are pattern seeking animals but it often leads to us seeing patterns that dont exist. Could also be that tragedy sells and so they seek out those type of stories. People have been doing horrible things before video games, before violent movies, before news or cable tv doesnt mean that there is a correlation between any of them.
Case in point. Places with more churches have higher crime rate. You could then assume that the religious are more often criminal, but you would be wrong they are both the result of a 3rd factor population. Places with higher population have more churches and have higher crime rates. Correlation doesnt = causation.
#133 to #116 - scuzzlebut
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Case and point **********. Otherwise I totally agree
#176 to #133 - bobbysnobby
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Lol thanks for the comment. That having been said it is "Case in Point"

=P have your self a nice morning/afternoon
User avatar #207 to #176 - scuzzlebut
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Further use of Google indicates that they may be both correct. lol
User avatar #206 to #176 - scuzzlebut
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
**** you right. have a thumb
#118 to #116 - stiffbeefyone
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Stop.....just stop right there before you hurt yourself...
#28 - pornomancer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
The USA has so much crime and people in prison because of how your society works, that taking away peoples guns is sort of like taking away peoples radiators, in Norway, or some other place above the arctic circle that's freezing hell in the winter, just to prevent more housefires.

Stop being douchebags protesting against guns when the shooter was a mentally ill youngster that everyone said "doesn't surprise me" about after the fact.

You can just as well flip it around and ask how many kids would have died if all the teachers had been carrying.
#30 to #28 - anon id: a767dd4f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Just like to mention, how many times has someone shot up a school without a gun. people say its takes a person to shoot a person but it also does take a gun (or a bow and arrow), Personally because i am from the UK my opinion would be anti-guns however i just think that the ban of all guns would be a mistake because there are far to many guns out there and to ban them would make it a criminal act to own one, thus making most of the US a criminal, However with the US' record of crime you will see it has the largest percentage of people in prison in the world. I'm not trying to hate on your comment rather just share my opinion. I understand that the Second Amendment says all american citizens have the right to bear arms but that was written in 1791, when Homesteaders were afraid of criminals such as cattle rustlers and other forms of reason such as animals like wolves and bears. In 2012 you would think that a more strict measure on the control of Guns is needed, something like a Gun per household. other please respond i enjoy hearing others arguments. My account is Joebellding, i forgot to log on.
User avatar #40 to #30 - volleys
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
The 2nd amendment was written for if there was a time where government became too powerful so the citizens would have access to the same weapons as the government (not cannnons, rockets). Why shouldn't we have the right to defend our homes?
#42 to #40 - cobrafan
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I agree, the 2nd amendment is also to defend ourselves from a rouge government...
#95 to #28 - benjaminbutton
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Oh, you think you're so smart. You think you could just get away without anyone noticing. But I, Benjaminbutton, have found your flaw amongst your wall of text. I bet your wondering how I did that, but I can't tell you my secrets; I can only point out your mistakes. Your comma after "works" is a grammatical flaw. Remember if "that" follows a word, you don't use a comma. If "which" follows a word, you do use a comma.

Nice try, pornomancer, but you're not getting away today; not under the watch of Funnyjunk's watchful protector, Benjaminbutton.


Heil.
User avatar #113 to #28 - ReeferTrees
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
We have so many people in jail because our Justice System is ****** and we IMPORT PRISONERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.
User avatar #77 - jewsburninindaoven
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Freedom gets in the way of safety. We have to decide whether or not the freedom is worth it.
User avatar #106 to #77 - ReeferTrees
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
What about the Freedom to have our own Safety?
User avatar #35 - scorcho
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
i love how americans argue about how gun control doesn't work, when most (civilized) countries have it and it works almost perfectly.
#71 to #35 - anon id: b78ffa4c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
That would be great...

If we weren't 50 countries put together with a huge black market due to ******* mexico that makes it easy to get a gun illegally for about $70. At this point, there's no point in getting rid of them. You can just buy more. Look at narcotics and see how bad that's going.

Do you think criminals will obtain them legally, or illegally for $70?
User avatar #41 to #35 - liquidz
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
The issue here is that there is no care or concern about people with mental health issues.

The guy was denied access to purchase a gun, our system works. He acquired them through other means. Perfect proof that if there is a ban, these situations will still exist and be even more wide spread.

Guns do more good than bad, and because 1 person does something like this, and 50 stand by and let it happen by not being armed.
#60 to #41 - nukioo
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
guns do more good than bad? Their only function is to kill or hurt people. If your enemy has not a weapon you wouldn't need one either to protect yourself.

Even so, i think i wouldn't do much good if they ban guns in the states. There are already too much and people would just obtain them illegally.
User avatar #75 to #60 - micota
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Someone bigger than you or more physically fit...does not need a firearm to beat you to death.

Twice as many people are killed with bare hands and feet every year then fire arms. More people are stabbed to death with knives or beaten to death with a blunt object as well.
User avatar #201 to #60 - liquidz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I agree on your banning, but you forget that guns are also used for defense and preserving our rights.
User avatar #76 to #60 - titilanious
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
i like what you said but guns also are used for hunting and sport not just to kill and or harm
User avatar #59 to #41 - scorcho
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
that's not exactly my point. Switzerland is exceptional in many areas, but i wanted to point at countries like germany, where only huntsmen and the police are even allowed to carry weapons, yet there are less shootings and gun related crimes, which is completely the opposite of the thesis, that gun control will not work.
#56 to #41 - jackbrook
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
he was only able to acquire them through other means so easily because america is so saturated with guns in the first place. which is also the reason why america can not afford to ban guns right now. all the wrong people would have access to them whilst all the right people would be left defenseless.
User avatar #39 to #35 - volleys
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Switzerland has almost no gun control, and has the least gun related crime.
User avatar #43 to #39 - manicekman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I maybe just don´t get it, but don´t like all the ******* men in Switzerland owe a gun?
User avatar #58 to #43 - imabser
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Yes they're required to serve in the army and when they get out they get to keep there rifle. So every mother ****** there has a gun and knows how to use it. If america required you to join the army i bet crime would go down. because everybody would be in the ******* army.
User avatar #63 to #58 - volleys
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
The problem is he people that commit gun crimes, usually have an unregistered firearm. I think it would be a great idea to require citizens to join the military, it would teach them respect and would probably be a lot less likely to commit crime.
User avatar #78 to #63 - micota
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
The USA is way to big to force every single male into the military.
There would be no way to support all the extra money needed for that many people in service with a huge portion of the workforce no longer producing in the economy to be taxed.
User avatar #187 to #78 - volleys
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
I'm sure we could, instead of all these lazy people sucking money out of welfare and working we probably could.
User avatar #97 to #39 - Chuckaholic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
because people can own the rifles they used in service but cannot get ammo without permits, kinda hard to kill if you don't have bullets.
#67 to #39 - gagakaraya **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#62 to #39 - nukioo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
you have 88.8 guns per 100 residents in the USA and 45 in Switzerland. Most of the Guns are owned by former Soldiers. They have no wannabe cowboys waving around their guns.
User avatar #64 to #62 - volleys
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Hardly anyone here waves their gun around like cowboys. I live in the southern US where most of the gun enthusiast live, and no they don't.
#52 to #39 - anon id: c1735a0e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
i'm swiss, I'd know.
#33 - hauntzor
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Internet's face when government does stupid ****