Quick comic #2

What, does it shoot brain cancer?

Must be somad because it's Obama.

This gif makes me sad:(

I forgot why I was mad.

*zip*

look lesbian not really twin sisters

i knew one of those girls...

Because registration and restriction has never. Ever. Led to confiscation and outright bans.

I'm never gonna register shit! :P fuck obama's unconstitutional ideals and legislation.

Not yet.But soon it will.

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” - Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

Good point, but why in that case have drug laws?

**gazajunk rolled a random image posted in comment #46 at Half-Year Gamer ** What the fuck did I just roll?

Guns do not do anything bad, unless given to the wrong people. The government is ''fixing'' the wrong thing. If we had more strict psychological tests we have to complete in order to get guns, (almost) nothing will happen. While taking away all guns might fix the problem, it would cause more shit then it is worth. If a person completes strict psychological tests to show he will not go on a killing spree, and registers his weapon, i see no reason why he shouldn't have a ''Big Scary Auto-Gun''. Since when has a registered, all standard's passing gun been used in a killing spree, instead of self-defence against an armed robbery, Mugging or other life threathening situations.
Also, some guns that are banned are less dangerous/good then some non-banned weapons. The banned one just looks more like an M4, while the un-banned is more of a Mosin Nagant rifle type, but they both are semi-auto, you can put optics on them, they both can have up to a total of 100 rounds in one magazine. The ban is put on the M4-resembling one because of its visuals, while both the banned and non-banned guns operate the same.

1. The gun is a tool. The user is the problem.
2. We've already banned automatic weapons and assault rifles. The weapons they want to ban just look scary and are therefore easy targets.
3. More murders are committed with HAMMERS than rifles of any sort. (The majority of gun crime is with pistols).
4. In the same manner we have an obligation to exercise our right to vote, we have an obligation as American citizens to protect ourselves, our neighbors, and our country.
5. You see no problem with the people who control the country disarming the people they rule? Doesn't that seem stupid?
6. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was in place for 10 years, yet we saw no change in gun crimes.
7. Columbine occurred during the Assault Weapons ban. The shooter simply used many 10 round magazines and was not hindered.
8. All of the shootings (with the exception of Tuscon AZ) have been in gun free zones.
9. You don't see mass shootings occurring at NRA conventions or gun shows, where you have a high concentration of firearms.
10. An armed society is a civil society.
11. Your list of invalid points incorrectly represents perfectly logical arguments. You've simply misconstrued them as to make those arguments sound baseless.

Does America not have a more violent culture? A person intent on murder will accomplish that murder regardless of how difficult it is.

You're insisting we punish everyone else because SOME people MIGHT do something wrong.

Following the same logic, we should ALSO ban cars because some people drive drunk.

Your use of the term "constructive" is a bunch of bullshit and you know it. We aren't contending how "constructive" firearms are, we are proving their legitimate use far outweighs instances of crime. By your logic a knife never does anything constructive either.

MILLIONS of people own these weapons and will NEVER harm anyone.

Essentially, you want to ban spoons because some people use them to get fat.

But if you REALLY want me to play your inane game, you're STILL wrong. The base purpose of a vehicle and a gun are to propel an object. Both are almost always used in a way that is legal and well within a citizen's rights.

I am not putting anyone at risk by owning a weapon. It will not jump out of its safe and start killing people. If I want to own a weapon you have no right to deny me. Your right to stop me only exists when I start violating the rights of others.

A gun can feed a family, protect oneself, and provide entertainment.
Calling someone stupid is not an argument. Just proves you don't know what you're talking about.
>Protip: Misspelling competent is a sign of incompetence.

By destroying, a bullet can:
1. Feed your family
2. Defend your family and country
3. Provide a source of competition
4. Provide entertainment.

1. You try hunting without a firearm.
2. If it protects me and my family from a criminal it is.
3. It does prevent me from shooting on my own property with my own weapon.
4. Still valid.

Are you trying to prove that guns are designed to kill like it's some brilliant revelation? Well I'm glad you've figured this out. Welcome to the real world. Sometimes we find it necessary to protect ourselves against those that would do us harm.

The problem with banning guns is that it leaves the law-abiding civilian population unarmed and effectively defenseless. There's also the problem of enforcement, and that gun control of that sort hasn't been shown to work.
There's nothing wrong with choosing not to own a gun, of course - I don't have one myself - but not everyone lives in picket-fence suburbia.

200 years ago you might have been able to rally up your town's people into a militia and take on the U.S. government with force. Now, that is not even remotely possible.