good guy reagan. . lltc ti 11' I. <-- I made this like a year ago.



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#10 - I Am Monkey (01/16/2013) [-]
<-- I made this like a year ago.
#43 - matralith (01/16/2013) [-]
****					 guns, just use your fists.
**** guns, just use your fists.
User avatar #40 - ronyx (01/16/2013) [-]
ITT: Bunch of butthurt faggots on both sides of the argument.
#37 - randomnab (01/16/2013) [+] (9 replies)
If guns are illegal no one is ever going to get killed.

It's not like people have a way of getting illegal stuff.
#23 - Mahazama has deleted their comment [+] (25 replies)
User avatar #27 to #23 - dikslapping (01/16/2013) [-]
The guns are to keep our own gov in check.
User avatar #14 - Onemanretardpack (01/16/2013) [+] (75 replies)
I find it hilarious that the government who relies on armed protection and sells weapons to cartels and insurgents and trains them to take over a regime that they don't agree with wants to ban scary guns.

inb4 "But if there were no guns there would be no shootings"
If the only reason that people aren't killing massive amounts of people is because they don't have the right tools, then it's a societal problem, not a problem with guns
#5 - bwbwbw (01/15/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Haha, loyds deletes a comment that shows his content to be false. Way to go buddy.
#44 - teets (01/16/2013) [-]
tfw he also supported limitations on the sale of assault rifles

User avatar #13 - corneth (01/16/2013) [-]
*cough* *cough* Iran-contra *cough* *cough*
#9 - KayRed (01/16/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Yes, instead he (not him personally, but congress) changed the laws so it would allow you to declare an insane person guilty, which kinda sucks, considering they have little control over their actions. So yeah, they held up gun rights at the expense of the mentally ill...woo hoo.
Yes, instead he (not him personally, but congress) changed the laws so it would allow you to declare an insane person guilty, which kinda sucks, considering they have little control over their actions. So yeah, they held up gun rights at the expense of the mentally ill...woo hoo.
User avatar #12 to #11 - KayRed (01/16/2013) [-]
I am pretty sure you can institutionalize some one if they commit a federal crime. In fact, it most cases of "Guilty, but insane," the guilty part will actually get treated, and once they are deemed mentally capable they are incarcerated.
#8 - hazmathank (01/16/2013) [+] (1 reply)
My desktop background
User avatar #124 - Crusader (01/16/2013) [+] (1 reply)
People, it's not as simply as banning guns and so on.
It's the fact that bearing arms is protected by the constitution, so if you start taking away certain things from the constitution then you create a system where you only obey bits and pieces of the constitution.
That doesn't work, a system of laws where people pick and choose what laws to obey simply does not work.
If they revoke the right to bear arms, what's to stop them from saying you no longer have a right to free speech, or have that "free speech" heavily restricted, what's to stop them from revoking your right to a speedy trial, your right to anything?
User avatar #100 - cullenatorguy (01/16/2013) [+] (2 replies)
It think it's funny how people actually think the problem here is either mental health or gun laws being too loose. It's both.

Getting a gun is way too damn easy in the U.S. 75% of mass shootings are performed with legally obtained guns. All firearms, including pistols, need to be regulated more strictly. Increased buying age + increased wait time + 6 month class every week on how to fire and keep a gun + monthly check up on guns + yearly class to keep guns + extensive background checks = crazies and people who act on instinct not getting a gun. If you're a good, law abiding citizen, you'll have no trouble getting a gun at all.

Mental health also needs to be worked on. I have no idea how that would work. Yearly health checks on your brain possibly? I'm not sure, but it's an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Now none of this is going to change gang violence all that much. They'll get the guns illegally no matter what, although I'm sure numbers will go down at least a bit. The only solution to the gun problem that I can see would to be to get rid of gang violence. That's impossible. I do blame the issue on the 2nd amendment. If it wasn't in the constitution, I bet the gun culture in America today would be far far smaller.

It's in the constitution in case of a tyrannical government. Honestly, while that's a nice thought, the U.S. military would crush us. The founding fathers didn't anticipate drones, tanks, and airplanes. The only way a real revolution would work is if the military started to defect.

User avatar #84 - cheeselol (01/16/2013) [+] (12 replies)
im for gun control,

here are some questions i would like answered, this isnt a rant, these are genuine questions i would like to hear the answers to so i can get a better idea.

(1)i understand maybe owning like a handgun, but why do you need assault rifles?

(2)what is so important about guns? atleast half of us arent old enough to get one.

(3)why do you still cite 'to keep the government in check' as an argument? with a government that spends TRILLIONS of dollars on there military, you would be no more than an untrained militia if that were ever the case.

(4) why do you compare getting a gun(if illegal) =/= getting drugs.

it is evident that getting cocaine is difficult, try it yourself. now a lot of your parents will own a gun, you could easily take their's.

(5) why do you assume its 'fair' if both parties own a gun? you arent going to get mugged in your own home, you most likely dont have your weapon on you, so its not fair.
User avatar #104 to #84 - Zarke (01/16/2013) [-]
1. There are FAR more assaults committed with handguns than assault rifles. In fact, almost NO assaults are committed with actual assault rifles (fully-automatic rifles firing an intermediate cartridge [ie. lots of bullets when you hold down the trigger]). You're thinking of semi-automatic rifles with military-style furniture (1 trigger pull = 1 round down-range). Why do we NEED them? Well, for home defense, the only things available more lethal than that are shotguns (arguably), but those have a higher risk of penetrating the walls of your home than the comparatively light projectiles fired by "assault rifles". Also, they're damn fun.

2. Outlaw guns, then outlaws will have guns. There are millions of guns in the US. The law abiding citizens are the ones who would comply with a gun ban, where people who use them for criminal activities anyways (ie. gangs) aren't going to comply. Also, look at these recent mass shootings. They all happened in so-called "gun-free zones". Something only law-abiding citizens are likely to comply with.

3. That's the way the Constitution was drafted. They just liberated themselves from what was considered "tyranny", and they didn't want to be subject to that same form of rule again, what with religious persecution (no gay marriage? Wait... That sounds like...), ridiculous taxes (LOL), and very little voice in government. Granted, it would be difficult to overthrow the U.S. military today, but remember, there are MILLIONS of guns out there. A conservative estimate is 88/100 people. Some guess it's an even 1:1. Rules of attrition say...

4. Not totally sure what you mean by that.

5. Yeah, people would NEVER break into your house. People NEVER get concealed carry permits. I'm sorry, this particular question is just ignorant.
#83 - bathoryhannibal (01/16/2013) [-]
Is anyone else wondering what percentage of people on this site were politically active during the Reagan's time in office? Just a random thought.
#189 - tannerman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #76 - durkadurka (01/16/2013) [+] (1 reply)
This whole gun ban effort has little to do with ending these mass shootings. That's why the legislation does little to improve mental health treatment and wouldn't have prevent the Sandy Hook shooting at all.

It's all about removing as much power from the people as possible. Sandy Hook is merely a vessel to manipulate the people into giving that power up.
User avatar #51 - baltre (01/16/2013) [+] (7 replies)
Yes gun restrictions would lower the amount of deaths by gun. But is it really so bad that people get killed. People get killed every day. It seems no one cares for the ******* in africa anymore? Why the **** argue over the death of some US citizens and just do something more importaint?
#25 - anonymous (01/16/2013) [-]
I wouldn't use reagan as a good example of a president
#7 - anonymous (01/15/2013) [-]
**** you op suck a big fat bag of dicks. Just in case your confused as to how to suck a bag of dicks. you will do all of them at once. and hopefully choke and die. faggot op
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)