AH JUS CANT TRUST DUH GUVMNINT NO MO - #81040998 added by lazorman at Thanks Obama!

Refresh

Options

asd

Reply-6

(01/18/2013)[-]

If someone can give me one good reason for a civilian to own an automatic rifle, I will go to their side of the argument. No paranoid ********, that doesn't count as a good reason.

#410 to #324 - aceofshadows

Reply+6

(01/18/2013)[-]

If you're as ignorant as your post makes you look, I wouldn't want you on my side.

#418 to #410 - demandsgayversion

Reply-2

(01/18/2013)[-]

I'm giving reasons for my thoughts instead of just calling someone "ignorant". Let's see you bring up a good point for your side that I haven't already **** logic on below you teenage videogame addicted stupid cunt.

#425 to #418 - aceofshadows

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

"teenage videogame addicted stupid cunt"

You're ignorant.

#432 to #425 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Okay, I'm ignorant. Tell me why. Tell me why the public will ever need automatic guns (and please read below, I've covered most ******** arguments.)

#474 to #432 - noblexfenrir

Reply+2

(01/18/2013)[-]

"Covered" or otherwise known as put his fingers in his ears and yelling "NAHH NAHH I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

#380 to #324 - lazorman

Reply+4

(01/18/2013)[-]

It's not to protect yourself from other people
it's to protect yourself from tyranny; from either a foreign or domestic government

insurance for bad politics, basically.
nothing wrong with not wanting to make yourself helpless, ya know?

#390 to #380 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Until criminals get the guns. This is the United States of America, and anyone with any foresight can tell that we will most likely never need to revolt.

#608 to #390 - schneidend#416 on commentsRank#416

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

And what if they try to pass the Metahuman Registration Act? What then? We endanger Spider-Man's loved ones by forcing him to reveal his secret identity? **** that. He's a hero.

#496 to #390 - marrrty

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

even if they did ban guns criminals would still get them, it would be just like illegal drugs even though they are "banned" a **** ton of people still get them.

#406 to #390 - lazorman

Reply+3

(01/18/2013)[-]

lol wot
the fact that we're even having this discussion is proof enough that it's not about individual liberty for many people and politicians, it's about forcing what THEY think is the right thing. it happens on both sides

"i dont think guns make sense, so lets get rid of them for everyone!"
"I dont want to pay into a medicare program, so lets just end it!"

so yeah. liberty and social choice isn't given out by authority, it has to be maintained by the people.

#412 to #406 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

I think most of what you're saying in this message is covered by more of my other replies below. I'm honestly getting tired and losing my conviction to care enough to argue, I'm just trying to close up lose ends so I can move on.

#419 to #412 - lazorman

Reply+1

(01/18/2013)[-]

AH JUS CANT TRUST DUH GUVMNINT NO MO

#446 to #419 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Among this fecal hurricane, thanks for being reasonable. It's refreshing.

#454 to #446 - lazorman

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

well if there's one thing I love, its a fecal hurricane!

#376 to #324 - anon id: 98d2a7a5

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

here i did a little research for you on firearm homicide enjoy
12996 homicides in 2010 8775 homicides by firearms in 2010
6009 handguns=46% of total homicides 68.5% of firearm homicides
358 rifles=2.7% of total homicides 4.1% of firearm homicides
373 shotguns=2.9% of total homicides 4.3% of firearm homicides
96 other guns=0.7% of total homicides 1.1% of firearm homicides
1939 not stated= 14.9% of total homicides 22.1% of firearm homicides
Source www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/

#384 to #376 - anon id: 98d2a7a5

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

As you can see most gun homicides in the US are done by a handgun. I dont see anyone bitching about them. You are more likely to get beaten to death than you are to get killed by an assault rifle. **** you are more likely to get stabbed than shot by anything else besides a handgun.

#482 to #384 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

More people have guns and knives and things than automatic weapons. In the shootouts that do have automatic weapons, more people are likely to get shot.

#429 to #384 - whogivesaratsass

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

someone has a lot of time on their hands

#361 to #324 - schneidend#416 on commentsRank#416

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Technically, mercenaries are civilians.

But, seriously: marksmanship is a hobby that exists, people collect firearms, a more powerful weapon gives the owner an edge in home defense.

#368 to #361 - demandsgayversion

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

The only home defense situation that would warrant the use of an automatic weapon is against another automatic weapon. As a hobby, I say **** that, public safety comes first. You can have just as much fun shooting cans with a pistol or hunting rifle or even a shotgun. If you really want to shoot up a school or play rambo in the back yard, you can make your own gun.

#386 to #368 - schneidend#416 on commentsRank#416

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Like I said, an "edge." As in, an advantage. If a dude breaks in with a pistol, and you have a carbine, he's pretty much ****** unless he's an awesome shot.

Regardless, exactly how is public safety more protected if assault rifles are illegal but shotguns are kosher? You'd probably kill/wound/maim more people emptying a shotgun into a crowd than a SMG or assault rifle.

#423 to #386 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Shotguns aren't as deadly at range.

#452 to #423 - schneidend#416 on commentsRank#416

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Point, but how much range do we need to consider something dangerous? You can hit things accurately from 50 yards or more with buckshot, IIRC. If we're worried about especially long ranges, a hunting rifle is just as capable of picking off somebody from far away.

#459 to #452 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Hunting rifle can't get off as many shots per second as an automatic weapon.

#475 to #459 - schneidend#416 on commentsRank#416

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Ah, so we're only interested in protect large groups of people stand very close together, and not individuals?

You can't have it both ways. Automatic fire isn't going to accurately hit people from 100+ yards away. If you're going to use a rifle, any rifle, for its range you'll need to place your shots, and fire single-shot or in the briefest of bursts.

#359 to #324 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

This has nothing to do with automatic fire capabilities, but more with uneducated thinking that a gun with a pistol grip and adjustable stock is a "high powered military assault weapon", .223 is a **** tier cartridge, but nobody is interested in banning large caliber "hunting rifles"

#364 to #359 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

I just now heard about the ban, so I don't know much about it, but I personally think that any automatic fire weaponry has a place in the public's hands.

#381 to #364 - noblexfenrir

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

"I just now heard about the ban, so I don't know much about it"

Why don't you try reading the damn thing before giving your opinion. You'll seem less ignorant that way.

You do realize that automatic weapons are a minority when it comes to gun deaths right?

#397 to #381 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

I'm not talking about the ******* gun ban, I'm talking about gun rights in general. And yeah, automatic weapons are a minority, because less people HAVE them. In the situations WITH automatic weapons more people die than in the situations with handguns and ****.

#439 to #397 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

As I said earlier, murders with legal automatics have only happened twice, and no, auto =/= more kills, that is complete and total ********. Automatic fire is exceedingly difficult to control, and wastes ammunition. Shot placement > volume of fire, just look at Simo Hayha, he killed over 500 Russians in the winter war wit his bolt-action mosin nagant, and they were doing a hell of a lot more than shooting back at him.

#414 to #397 - noblexfenrir

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

You're joking right? There are most instances around the world of MANY more individuals being killed by a killer wielding a KNIFE than an assault weapon.

#436 to #414 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Yeah no ****, because knifes are easier to get. But in the event of a shootout with an assault rifle, more people will die than in a knife fight.

#445 to #436 - noblexfenrir

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Or someone with that assault rifle could stop someone going on a killing spree with a knife. I literally also just said, MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN MANY EVENTS INVOLVING KNIVES THAN ASSAULT WEAPONS, meaning, there are more cases in which higher numbers are murdered as a result of knives than assault weapons.

Why aren't you advocating the ban of knives?

#451 to #445 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Your argument has deteriorated into rabble. This portion of the thread is done.

#455 to #451 - noblexfenrir

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

So you can't answer my question, therefor you end the conversation. Very nice showing how childish you are.

#374 to #364 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

In order to obtain one, you need to either be a class 3 FFL, or jump through some hoops with the BATFE, and even then you must find a transferable, preban automatic which can cost between $25,000-$50,000. and then it is registered with the BATFE as an NFA weapon.
also, to my knowledge, only 2 murders have ever been committed with a legally owned automatic.

#385 to #374 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Without a place to get them legally, there's nowhere to get them ILlegally. Someone with a good record and **** probly buys 'em and sells for a higher price to criminals.

#421 to #385 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

The United States has some of the worst border (land and sea) security in the world,most guns used in crimes are smuggled in. And with minimal instruction a single person can turn out ~30 STEN family submachineguns in a day with minimal equipment.
And people do not "resell" NFA weapons and accesories, because they are registered, and the BATFE does regular inspections.

#437 to #421 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

The less options criminals have to get guns, the better. Less is better than more, even if none isn't an option.

#447 to #437 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

A complete ban on guns would work in some countries, in America, it would just make it worse.

#453 to #447 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Based on what logic?

#477 to #453 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

The amount of guns in the country, 50% of the worlds guns. The US government does not have the resources to confiscate all of them. and most states do not have gun registries, so nobody knows who owns what. essentially the best they can do is disarm the law abiding citizens while criminals keep the guns they have and buy up more from crooked government agents. And even if they had the resources, the sheer cost would push them over the fiscal cliff.

#486 to #477 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

All you need is a few cops per city going door to door searching houses for the assault weapons (and possibly finding more evidence to crimes) during the times they would normally be gaffing about.

#494 to #486 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

That would take years, and confiscation would be handled by the BATFE, an organization with an overinflated budget and incompetent bureaucrats. Also, some towns, cities, and states have the authority to deny access to federal agents.

#499 to #494 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Well that's ****** up. Still, the actual confiscation measures is another argument entirely. I was merely talking about the concept, not the logistics.

#348 to #324 - noblexfenrir

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Give me one reason a household needs more than one knife, a single knife can kill multiple individuals and CHILDREN! So obviously to protect the CHILDREN we should remove all knives from peoples homes, I mean why would they possibly need more than one? Oh and they also need to be registered and you need to have a background check whenever you sharpen it.

Seriously though, we are talking about guns and clip sizes in general, people should be able to own them because it is used for sport, fun, and self-defense, and yes self=defense counts as a ******* reason it's not "paranoid" ********.

#357 to #348 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Sport and fun are below public safety, and there is not one goddamn person who is gonna break into your house that you would be more well off with an assault rifle than with a pistol or hunting rifle.

#379 to #357 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

A "hunting rifle" rifle is pretty much the worst thing possible for home defense, you'd be better off hitting him over the head with it.
Also, like "assault weapons", the term "hunting rifle" has no definition, one could cut rifling grooves in a lead pipe, fire a bullet out of it at an animal and it could be classed as a "hunting rifle".

#366 to #357 - noblexfenrir

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

Public safety? Guns stop more crimes then they cause. You should probably address my whole knife thing then, they kill people, why is it not being stopped?

" there is not one goddamn person who is gonna break into your house that you would be more well off with an assault rifle than with a pistol or hunting rifle."

I'm not talking about purely assault weapons, I'm talking guns in general no matter the clip size.

#345 to #324 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

1. To form a militia
2. Recreation
3. Red Dawn
I know the last 2 are BS
He fact is the U.S. is such a large country that a revolution would be too hard without them. The large amount of shootings is because of huge test group, and too many human rights for the homicidal and crazy people. I dont see why people complain about the u.s. and guns when in some European countries trains are being blown up and people lob grenades into crowds.

#352 to #345 - demandsgayversion

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

What are you, retarded? You think a few hicks with guns can rival the UNITED STATES MILITARY? That's ignorant as ****.

#400 to #352 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Well, you judgemental raccoon, most hick have more then a "few" guns. I know people who have armories practically. They would distribute them to the rest of the unarmed militia. By your logic, a "few" hicks would attempt to take the strongest and most advanced miitary force in the world alone, carrying 20 or so guns each.

#407 to #400 - demandsgayversion

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

Let's give an entire city assault rifles. 1 each, plenty of ammo. Now tell me, how is that gonna help when TANKS are rolling through the streets? Do civilians have bomber jets?

#457 to #407 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Take a look at Stalingrad, children destroyed as many tanks with molotovs as the red army did. And the US government has a limit on how much force its willing to use on revolutionaries. airstrikes would likely be limited to rural areas, and if a revolution were to happen, a large portion of the military would defect, with their equipment.

#472 to #457 - demandsgayversion

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

So in event of a revolution, the military defectors would bring assault weapons to the civilians? Then why do the civilians need to buy any now?

#483 to #472 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Not "assault weapons" (that isn't a real word btw), the soldiers may have their issued firearms, but the equipment I mentioned would be thins like tanks, aircraft, artillery pieces, even ships.

#488 to #483 - demandsgayversion

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

That makes the automatic weapons seem pretty insignificant, doesn't it?

#508 to #488 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

No. All those things are controlled by men. Men are susceptible to guns. A battleship know neither good nor evil, it merely shoots when you tell it to.

#514 to #508 - demandsgayversion

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

A battleship isn't controlled by man? Really, I do love philosophy, but this is not the place for it. B for effort.

#530 to #514 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

F for failure to read correctly. I said that they ARE controlled by men. Please double check before making incorrect statements in the future.

#534 to #530 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Bad grammar, you opposed guns against ships, whether you meant to or not. I'm sorry I can't ******* read minds!

#552 to #534 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Apology accepted. As for the grammar, keys are missed that result in bad spelling, but the grammar shows no error. Again, please double check your responses. The sentence in question was a simple declarative statement.

#500 to #488 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

The only place of tanks on the modern battlefield is against other armored vehicles, a fighter jet cannot stand on a street corner and keep order, ships cannot search houses, automatic weapons are the backbone of a revolution.

#509 to #500 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

You can't search a house with a pistol? And I'm sure one of those ships, tanks, or aircraft has some automatic weapons in them.

#526 to #509 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Clearing rooms isn't as easy as kicking a door down and sticking your head inside, and a ships armory doesn't not contain enough weapons to arm every revolutionary in the US.

#532 to #526 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

I still call it an effective revolution.

#542 to #532 - leettaco

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

100 million gun owners vs US gov = revolutionary victory
100 million former gun owners running around with improvised guns and a bit of military equipment = 100 million people executed for treason because they used their second amendment right to rise up against a tyrannical government.

#547 to #542 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

100 million people wouldn't HAVE guns otherwise, automatically (pun). That's a dangerous assumption.

#583 to #547 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Now, to business. I quote, "If someone can give me one good reason for a civilian to own an automatic rifle, I will go to their side of the argument. No paranoid ********, that doesn't count as a good reason." You have your good reason. Your attempts to refute these reasons have been quelled. I hope you accept our arguments and see the validity of them. But the real question is, will you deliver?

#590 to #583 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Nope. I got the last word on all arguments that weren't faff. I saw zero good reasons.

#614 to #590 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

If you truely feel that way, then i feel sorry for you. What is the purpose of posing a question that you do not want the answer to? Do you fear truth? If so, as the evidence suggests, you are a lost cause. Have fun with your misconstrued notions of logic.

#681 to #614 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

I wasn't posing a question, I was challenging a debate. You may feel I lost, and that's your own bias view, but in my eyes, there was no argument I didn't prove as invalid. If you want to say I didn't argue correctly, that is your prerogative, and you can cease contact with me as I did those I felt were using backwards logic.

#705 to #681 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

You asked, we answered.

#440 to #407 - anon id: 8071ecb7

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Building are pretty solid defense against tanks. A tall building will be too high for the tank to fire upon. Civilians can have military anti tank weapons in some states, IEDs are pretty effective, and C4 can be made at home in about a month. Your close minded views on military strategy and weapon effectiveness is appalling. Not to mention your belief of extreme government oppression and control.

#367 to #352 - internetzsoviet

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Are you ******* stupid? You honestly think the whole US Military is gonna gun down its own citizens? They'll probably turn along with the citizens.

The Marines will not kill any US citizens under any circumstances. More than half the Army and National Guard arent about to either.

#372 to #367 - demandsgayversion

Reply+1

(01/18/2013)[-]

Do you really think America will ever need/have a revolution? No. That's just retarded paranoid "Obama is a terrorist taking over the government" ********.

#388 to #372 - noblexfenrir

Reply+1

(01/18/2013)[-]

"Do you really think America will ever need/have a revolution?"

YES, you know how I know? Because we already have had one, hence the american revolution. and you know what's funnier? That was for even less **** then is happening now.

#401 to #388 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

That has to be the dumbest argument yet. The American revolution WAS AGAINST BRITAIN! The MONARCHY! We're a ******* democracy now, and if someone seems tyrannty, we're not gonna elect 'em! If we're stupid enough to elect a tyrant, than I doubt we'll care enough to revolt over it.

#430 to #401 - noblexfenrir

Reply-1

(01/18/2013)[-]

Really? Because the one thing that gives civilians a force advantage over the government is being demonized against. Also the reason we revolted was because we weren't being given a say in parliament, so in a situation where I don't know, almost all legal gun owners in america are being silenced due to the popularization of one instance of mass murder when guns deter more crime and stop more crime than they cause, seems like a pretty similar scenario sparky.

#375 to #372 - internetzsoviet

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

Of course it is. Obama is not a terrorist but he is a less than proficient leader in protecting American rights.

Thinking that the government wont ever turn on its population is a stupid idea. History is filled with examples of it.

#387 to #375 - demandsgayversion

Reply0

(01/18/2013)[-]

You're a paranoid nutjob, our conversation is done.

Back to the content 'Thanks Obama!'