Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #324 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #410 to #324 - aceofshadows (01/18/2013) [-]
If you're as ignorant as your post makes you look, I wouldn't want you on my side.
User avatar #418 to #410 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #425 to #418 - aceofshadows (01/18/2013) [-]
"teenage videogame addicted stupid cunt"

You're ignorant.
User avatar #432 to #425 - demandsgayversion (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.)
User avatar #474 to #432 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
"Covered" or otherwise known as put his fingers in his ears and yelling "NAHH NAHH I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
User avatar #380 to #324 - lazorman (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?
User avatar #390 to #380 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #608 to #390 - schneidend (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 (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.
User avatar #406 to #390 - lazorman (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.
User avatar #412 to #406 - demandsgayversion (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 (01/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #446 to #419 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Among this fecal hurricane, thanks for being reasonable. It's refreshing.
User avatar #454 to #446 - lazorman (01/18/2013) [-]
well if there's one thing I love, its a fecal hurricane!
#376 to #324 - Common Pepe (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 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #482 to #384 - demandsgayversion (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 (01/18/2013) [-]
someone has a lot of time on their hands
User avatar #361 to #324 - schneidend (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.
User avatar #368 to #361 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #386 to #368 - schneidend (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.
User avatar #423 to #386 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Shotguns aren't as deadly at range.
User avatar #452 to #423 - schneidend (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.
User avatar #459 to #452 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Hunting rifle can't get off as many shots per second as an automatic weapon.
User avatar #475 to #459 - schneidend (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.
User avatar #359 to #324 - leettaco (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"
User avatar #364 to #359 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #381 to #364 - noblexfenrir (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?
User avatar #397 to #381 - demandsgayversion (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 **** .
User avatar #439 to #397 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #414 to #397 - noblexfenrir (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.
User avatar #436 to #414 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #445 to #436 - noblexfenrir (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?
User avatar #451 to #445 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Your argument has deteriorated into rabble. This portion of the thread is done.
User avatar #455 to #451 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2013) [-]
So you can't answer my question, therefor you end the conversation. Very nice showing how childish you are.
User avatar #374 to #364 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #385 to #374 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #421 to #385 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #437 to #421 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #447 to #437 - leettaco (01/18/2013) [-]
A complete ban on guns would work in some countries, in America, it would just make it worse.
User avatar #453 to #447 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Based on what logic?
User avatar #477 to #453 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #486 to #477 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #494 to #486 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #499 to #494 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #348 to #324 - noblexfenrir (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" ******** .
User avatar #357 to #348 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #379 to #357 - leettaco (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".
User avatar #366 to #357 - noblexfenrir (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 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #352 to #345 - demandsgayversion (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 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #407 to #400 - demandsgayversion (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?
User avatar #457 to #407 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #472 to #457 - demandsgayversion (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?
User avatar #483 to #472 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #488 to #483 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
That makes the automatic weapons seem pretty insignificant, doesn't it?
#508 to #488 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #514 to #508 - demandsgayversion (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 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #534 to #530 - demandsgayversion (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 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #500 to #488 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #509 to #500 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #526 to #509 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #532 to #526 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
I still call it an effective revolution.
User avatar #542 to #532 - leettaco (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.
User avatar #547 to #542 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
100 million people wouldn't HAVE guns otherwise, automatically (pun). That's a dangerous assumption.
#583 to #547 - Common Pepe (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?
User avatar #590 to #583 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
Nope. I got the last word on all arguments that weren't faff. I saw zero good reasons.
#614 to #590 - Common Pepe (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.
User avatar #681 to #614 - demandsgayversion (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 - Common Pepe (01/18/2013) [-]
You asked, we answered.
#440 to #407 - Common Pepe (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 (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.
User avatar #372 to #367 - demandsgayversion (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" ******** .
User avatar #388 to #372 - noblexfenrir (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.
User avatar #401 to #388 - demandsgayversion (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.
User avatar #430 to #401 - noblexfenrir (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.
User avatar #375 to #372 - internetzsoviet (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.
User avatar #387 to #375 - demandsgayversion (01/18/2013) [-]
You're a paranoid nutjob, our conversation is done.
 Friends (0)