#81254565 added by whyisthissohard at Gun control logic

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

Considering that this guy was a mercenary in Iraq, and has killed people before, it's probably a bad Idea to try and take his guns.

HURPA DUUR!!! Our popice offercers will be safer when none has asssulrt weapoons!!

Sir. You seem to be forgetting who the people are that will be shot to hell when they try to raid the homes of heavily armed people.

#154 to #113 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#187 to #154 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

A man with a gun in his drawer can respond a lot faster than a police officer.

#189 to #187 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#259 to #189 - Zarke

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

A handgun. Compact, lightweight, easily concealed, fairly large-capacity magazines (hell, Glock makes 33-round handgun magazines), a reasonable degree of lethality... Also used in somewhere around 70% of assaults. Yeah, I completely agree that those are "better" than "assault rifles".

Do you people have any idea what you're talking about?

#264 to #259 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#262 to #259 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#269 to #262 - Zarke

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

Look, people will use whatever they can if they want to kill a lot of innocent people. Machete assault? Driving a car through a playground and doing donuts on the screaming children? Setting up their grandpa's hunting rifle on a hill? Crazy people can be remarkably resourceful.

It's also funny to realize that a lot of these "mass shootings" happen in "gun-free zones".

#271 to #269 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#277 to #271 - Zarke

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

I come off as extremely pro-gun on these comment threads, but I do agree with mental health screenings, background checks, and licensing. More than anything we need to make sure that the people themselves are OK, not the tools they use. The way I see it, any sane, law abiding citizen should have the right to get whatever they feel they need for whatever purpose they need, be it hunting, recreation, or protection from those who disregard whatever laws are in place.

#278 to #277 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#284 to #278 - Zarke

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

Well, thing is, "assault weapons" (AKA, select-fire rifles capable of fully automatic fire, chambered in an intermediate cartridge) are already heavily regulated. You can't legally buy one that was manufactured before some point in the 80's. Because of this, they're effectively collector's items, and their prices are astronomical. Not to mention that they're not all that good for mass killings anyways.

Not many people have those either. And really, how many crimes have been committed in the past few decades with an RPG?

#292 to #284 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#296 to #292 - Zarke

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

Well, we have lots of things we don't "need". But we have them anyways. We can justify having them however we want, but the arguments common to almost all of these things is "because we can" and "because they're fun". And isn't that reason enough in the "Land of the Free"? So long as your fun doesn't infringe on the basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who's to complain?

Yeah, you seem pretty cool. Enjoy yourself =)

#202 to #189 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

Clearly your dresser is very small. And there are very extensive background checks and equally long waiting periods to get a license to own a handgun or automatic weapon, let alone purchase one.

#205 to #202 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#211 to #205 - heartlessrobot#129 on commentsRank#129

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

Not much more of a way to enforce them. Most cases of gun violence are with a stolen weapon or someone taking their parent's gun, when their parent passed all background checks.

#176 to #154 - fantomen

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

Well many police chiefs have already come out and publicly stated that they won't enforce the AWB, even if it passes, because they think it's unconstitutional, and too dangerous for their officers.

According to the FBI the last AWB had no effect on public safety, and if it did, it was too small to measure.
And it won't be any different this time.
So called "assault weapons are used in less than 5% of all gun crime, and less than 3% of murders.
The AWB was never meant to increase public safety. It's a stepping stone for further bans and legislation.
There are recoding from the 90s of politicians admitting this, and the same politicians are are trying to push the laws through again for a new try.
But they know it won't be easy, and so they use things like New Town, and letters "from children" to tug at the publics heartstrings.

#180 to #176 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#135 to #113 - darknesincontrol

Reply-3

(01/20/2013)[-]

His little speech gives them more than right to take away his assualt rifle. He is clealy no longer mentally stable

#153 to #135 - fantomen

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

You do realize the 2nd amendment is about killing the people that try to infringe on your other rights, right?

The founding fathers wrote that in, because they recently had to use their guns to kill a bunch of redcoats that tried to take their freedom away, so they wrote in a guarantee to future generations, so they could be armed if something like that happened again.

And don't give me **** like that the 2nd amendment only applies to a militia, Because when it was written, all males between the ages of 15 and 50 were considered part of the militia. And don't give me the whole "oh, but it doesn't apply to modern weapons" because the reason the Americans won the war of independence was that civilians owned warships and canons. And the founding fathers sure as hell knew that since most of them fought in the war.

I'm not even American, and I know that much.

#196 to #153 - anon id: b9a37ee4

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

also the 2nd amendment only applies to action by the federal government, individually states can actually enforce gun-control

#183 to #153 - timmywankenobi

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

by that logic you should give a nuclear war head to every citizen and if anyone is unhappy with the government they can just blow it up.cause it's just a weapon and the power and potential for destruction of said weapon is irrelevant as long as you can bear arms.

#200 to #183 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#213 to #200 - timmywankenobi

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

lol that's pretty funny.

#219 to #213 - whyisthissohard**User deleted account**

-1

has deleted their comment [-]

#231 to #219 - timmywankenobi

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

eyuup.

#192 to #183 - fantomen

Reply+2

(01/20/2013)[-]

No one should have nukes, not even the ******* G20 governments.
And no one is seriously suggesting we let anyone have nukes.
Stop being ridiculous and post a valid argument.

#172 to #153 - darknesincontrol

Reply-2

(01/20/2013)[-]

hey he threatens to kill people and giving his status as an ex merc, should he still be allowed to bear arms, when he is in the brink of insanity?

#124 to #113 - simplelife

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

Was he really? Can you get me more info on this muscular, scary looking fellow?

#164 to #124 - iluvharrypotter

Reply+2

(01/20/2013)[-]

His name is James Yeager, he's the CEO of a company called Tacitcoool Arms or some **** training people in assault training or whatever. He does videos, I looked on the website before and they have quite a small staff so I doubt it's actual academy or some ****, rather than just a few guys giving out tips in their freetime.
Anyways, he was a police during the 90's, apart of a SWAT unit, apart of a dog unit too as a officer, he wasn't a mercenary, he was a private military security contractor during the Iraq war and protected the polling stations and politicians during their first election. He did see combat, but I heard a bunch of rumors on /k/ that his unit got ambushed, he hid in a ditch, and ran away. But never knew the rest of it.

But anyways, for anyone thinking that gun owners like this guy, you're completely wrong. James Yeager has got a repution by a lot of people on a bunch of firearms forums for being a douche, people were criticizing on his videos in the past and he threaten anyone to meet him in real life to fight him and he would offer them reward money, and a bunch of different ego ****. His tactical training is apperantly ****** too.

Anyways the guy is a real life American version of "m8 i swear on mums life i wreck u in rl 1v1"

#132 to #124 - fantomen

Reply+2

(01/20/2013)[-]

www.youtube.com/user/JamesYeager

This is his youtube channel.
He runs a school that teaches shooting and combat skills.
He was recently striped of his concealed carry license when he posted anti-Obama videos on youtube.

#144 to #132 - simplelife

Reply+1

(01/20/2013)[-]

I'm actually surprised further actions weren't taken since he spoke out against the president and threatened to start a civil war of sorts. Guy is cray cray, but I love it. One of the few guys in the world that has some hair on his peaches.

#142 to #132 - anon id: 52697a10

Reply0

(01/20/2013)[-]

>anti-obama Video
>Loses CC

IT'S HAPPENING!!!

#161 to #142 - fantomen

Reply+3

(01/20/2013)[-]