Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #666 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Anyone who doesn't take the top panel seriously is a fool. Will we learn from the past this time?
User avatar #789 to #666 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Continuing here ebcause the thread got too long.

Seriously though, there has to be some kind of plan involved.
I mean are they just planning to ban weapons that can do serious damage, leaving the people with handguns/shotguns/rifles?

Cause I don't think people need to keep uzi's or ak-47's around.

Also I don't know much about gun types, feel free to crrect me if I got soemthing wrong.
#799 to #789 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
An m4 and an ak47 are just rifles. Now it get's kind of dangerous when there are fully automatic rifles, which is why you need special permits to own them. Handguns are arguably more dangerous than any rifle or shotgun. Stats. Here in America, we see guns as guns with little concern about what kind they are, and we believe if we can use them responsibly, then we should be able to own them. Even if it means proving it by having no criminal record and going through all the trouble and taxes to get a permit for an automatic weapon.

I believe that the liberals of America, or just a part of them, trust the government more than the citizens to own weapons and that some day they should be illegal.

Hey man, it's 2:00am in the morning where I am at, we can continue this tomarrow if you'd like. I'm very tired see ya.

PS: No I'm not ditching you because it's a boring conversation. I enjoy deep conversation. Until next time.
User avatar #800 to #799 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
K cya. As an afterthought, I just think it's useful to make a distinction between weapons that can be used for protection, e.g. to threaten a burglar, and weapons that are designed to efficiently end as many lives as possible.
User avatar #920 to #800 - doodogger (01/28/2013) [-]
So called "assault rifles" are not made to end as many lives as possible, machine guns aren't even made to do that. An "assault rifle" is just a modern rifle fit for the modern man. Machine guns are intended for cover fire and not necessarily to kill. Weapons are are meant to kill as many lives as possible are bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical/biological weapons.
User avatar #922 to #920 - ewowo (01/28/2013) [-]
Machince guns are meant for cover fire in army situations, sure. But I don't think people need that around the house.
User avatar #924 to #922 - doodogger (01/29/2013) [-]
This goes back to the fact that Americans believe they are born with the right to own weapons. Sure, they aren't practical for defending one's house, or hunting, but that's not the point. The point is that they become dangerous around careless, or mentally unstable people, even extremely angry people. We have good restrictions on machine guns in America. If someone wants one, they have to go through a bunch of **** , taxes, background checks, etc... to get it. And attention from police if they see you with it. I've never heard of anyone committing mass murder with a machine gun yet in America. The only people that have them are people who are passionate about them/gun enthusiasts.
User avatar #928 to #924 - ewowo (01/29/2013) [-]
What about samller guns built for repeated fire, uzi and the like?
User avatar #933 to #928 - doodogger (02/01/2013) [-]
My best explanation is that SMGs are like Machine guns, but for CQB, combined with a pistol. They are usually used to keep heads down in CQB situations, but also often for killing of the opposition. I say this because it takes usually 1 bullet to take down your enemy or kill them. The SMG basically increases your chances of hitting the enemy possibly many times. Should these be banned? In my opinion, No. They are hard enough to get for a law abiding citizen. Even easier for a committed criminal.
User avatar #934 to #933 - doodogger (02/01/2013) [-]
And no new law can stop that.
User avatar #935 to #934 - ewowo (02/01/2013) [-]
So these guns are already restricted? that's good.
User avatar #936 to #935 - doodogger (02/03/2013) [-]
Yes. They are very very hard to get. But if you are a law abiding citizen, you have to go through more background checks from the ATF, more taxes, and get it ok'ed by your local police chief or sheriff.
User avatar #937 to #936 - ewowo (02/04/2013) [-]
And that's a bad thing?
User avatar #938 to #937 - doodogger (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not bad. It's perfect the way it is.
User avatar #939 to #938 - ewowo (02/06/2013) [-]
K.
User avatar #921 to #920 - doodogger (01/28/2013) [-]
I wish nuclear weapons were never made.
User avatar #923 to #921 - ewowo (01/28/2013) [-]
I hear you, man.
User avatar #672 to #666 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah because Hitler...

Tried to restrict the use of guns?

I don't necessarily have strong feelings one way or the other in this debate, I just keep facepalming at how BOTH SIDES use EQUALLY RIDICULOUS arguments to desperately try to prove their point.
User avatar #680 to #672 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, he was able to get them banned from the German population. The people who believe guns should be outlawed really need to do some thinking, check the FBI crime statistics with guns, and just be more down to earth, instead of just wanting to ban assault weapons. The only thing they will get from banning assault weapons is a "feel good" feeling, that they did something about it. But from stats and common sense, banning weapons does nothing. Gun crime has gone down about 50% since the early 1980s believe it or not, and not to mention there are a LOT more guns in circulation now too. The liberal dominated media just wants everyone to think that gun crime is abnormally high to push a ban on guns. Because you know, only the government needs them right?
User avatar #683 to #680 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
You're trying to convince me of your pro-gun points.
That's basically what it boils down to every time, huh? I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I really don't care what happens. I don't use guns. I don't think people NEED guns. But, if you really want those guns, I'm not gonna be the one to say you can't have them.
User avatar #687 to #683 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
It's ok as long as you don't want them taken away. Were cool.
User avatar #690 to #687 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
But seriously for a second. Don't you ever look at the arguments the pro-gun side uses and just want to hit yourself in the ******* face over and over again?

Like with every issue in the states EVER, both sides are voiced equally loudly by equally retarded people.
Untide Stats pls
User avatar #925 to #690 - doodogger (01/29/2013) [-]
What pro gun arguments make you want to "hit yourself in the ******* face over and over again"?
User avatar #927 to #925 - ewowo (01/29/2013) [-]
I can't bring myself to type them out.
User avatar #696 to #690 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Well I think the NRA has gone a little far at worst in their views.
User avatar #699 to #696 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Not even talking about the NRA itself, they can manage to be... pretty moderate, at times.

Just. Every issue ever. Angry Americans on facebook voicing their opinions.

I just sit back, read the arguments and I'm like: "Do people REALLY believe this?"

EVERY ISSUE EVER has both sides claiming the world will ACTUALLY END if they don't get what they want.
User avatar #703 to #699 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I believe that in most arguments, both sides have ground in their opinions, but I just don't believe that in gun control. I believe that if someone wants to have any gun they want to defend themselves, even if it's black and evil looking. And the people that don't believe in that have the choice not to own a gun. Most guns are owned by law abiding citizens.
User avatar #709 to #703 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
The problem is that most people who don't believe in guns aren't comfortable with other people owning guns.
Since the dawn of time, humanity has been in a contest of 'who has the biggest stick', and some people just don't want to do that anymore. Some people want nobody to have sticks.

I have to say I'm one of those people. I truly believe that this world would be better without guns.

I'm also not stupid, and I know that as long as ANYONE is allowed to own a gun, everyone should be.
User avatar #714 to #709 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Do you count governments as one of those people who have a stick?
User avatar #715 to #714 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Definitely.
Though I don't think in this debate it really matters. Their stick is bigger anyways. I don't think if they take away your sticks they'll gain any significant advantage they don't already have.
User avatar #723 to #715 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
The main reason we were allowed to own guns was to replace a tyrannical government if the time comes. Even though we can't really win a war or attrition against the U.S. Army, it would still be a guerrilla war. And as you probably know, it's very difficult to win a guerrilla war. The same thing would happen that happened in Afghanistan. The erosion of the U.S. military is happening there, unless we pull out. Afghanistan is where armies go to die. I don't see a second civil war in America, but if the government continues to erode our freedoms, we, as we were brought up, are paranoid about freedom, and we will defend them if the time comes. Is this ridiculous? I can't say.
User avatar #728 to #723 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
But don't you think you should slowly, but steadily, work towards a world were you won't NEED those guns anymore? I'm not saying that you should hand them over today, but just start getting to it.
User avatar #735 to #728 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I don't really know, because it's so normal and there is a correlation between more guns and less crime in the United States. Shooting them is very fun and can be very safe if you are properly trained. Perhaps when we can 100% trust our government. Then and only then can it be considered in America.
User avatar #736 to #735 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
I know it can't change now, but really, it's sort of like the cold war, isn't it? Not an ideal situation.
Still, it works for now.

Also, this thread has provided me with some serious pro-gun arguments. I can continue to go about my favourite business of shutting people up when they use retarded agrguments on EITHER SIDE of this debate.

Hah I feel so smugly superior right now I fart cigar smoke.
User avatar #741 to #736 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I might have to use that cigar smoke thing it's hilarious lol. Yes, it is a cold-war-like situation, but we are humans and as you know humans aren't perfect.
User avatar #746 to #741 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
I'd still say both sides have grounded arguments though.
User avatar #757 to #746 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah.
User avatar #679 to #672 - Yardie (01/25/2013) [-]
But Hitler did restrict gun usage. He expanded on the citizens' Gun Regulations that the National Socialist Party set in place before he was elected and made it easier for government officials (ie. the SS) to carry firearms.
User avatar #682 to #679 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Ok... still if you start compairing your opponent in a debate to Adolf Hitler, you're not making a very convincing point.

Personally I understand both parties, I wouldn't keep a gun myself and Im not very fond of the idea that everyone has one, but I'm a democrat (and that's in the actual meaning of the word, not the political party) to the core, and if the majority of the people want to keep their guns, they should.
User avatar #691 to #682 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
We're not necessarily saying that Obama will put people into extermination camps and kill millions of Americans, but I am saying that it's setting the stage for martial law and the possibility of the latter. We never seem to learn from the past. That is what is killing America.
User avatar #694 to #691 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Eh, I think you're all overreacting. Gun restriction has been applied in Europe, and we don't live every day of our lives in fear of our government.

We're mainly trying to scam our government out of as much money as possible.
And they do the same to us, it's a mutual understanding.
User avatar #700 to #694 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Americans have owned guns for hundreds of years, it is ingrained into so much of us. It is part of our culture and our way of life. It's our check/balance to the government. Most if not all governments in the world have a "positive powers" government/population, where the government tells the citizens what they can and can't do, basically gives them a list of their rights, and the rest belongs to the government. Here in America, it's the opposite of that, we have a "negative powers" which means that we the people tell the government what they can do. We basically give the government a list of their rights, and the rest is ours.
User avatar #702 to #700 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
I know your culture is different, and respect that. It's the main reason why I don't pick a side. If you guys were europeans, I'd be on the anti-gun side. Heck, if you guys were European, you wouldn't even have guns anymore.
User avatar #708 to #702 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
I'm sure if I was raised in live in Europe, my opinion would probably be different. Because as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong... Most European countries have had strong gun control for a long time and never were able to develop that gun culture we have in America, and there was never much of a chance for many guns to circulate in the population for criminals to easily get their hands on. Just in America, we had to use guns to fight a government that was trying to rule us from across the world and we really really didn't agree with.
User avatar #713 to #708 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
That's very true. But even today, although I'm absolutely positively sure that your government (like all governments everywhere) is doing its very best to screw you over big time, I don't think they want to restrict guns so they can start subjugating the people to their evil will. They honestly want lower crime rates. Or at least cut down on the numberof casualties those crimes are causing.
User avatar #717 to #713 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
For Americans, taking guns away is just slowly eroding our freedom which we are very paranoid about (look at how our revolution started and went). For us, owning guns is a basic normality. Which it isn't for you I'm guessing, and respect that.
User avatar #726 to #717 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
That's kind of the point, owning guns is part of your cultural identity.
#727 to #726 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, owning guns is the choice of the people of each country. If you are not confortable owning them, then that's fine, if we aren't confortable not owning them then that's fine. I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding on FJ/the internet. It's not that common.
User avatar #731 to #727 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Also, to get back to your original comment, the post with the hitler comparison is a little ridiculous. If you want to convince people of your point, use solid arguments the ones in this thread.

People won't want to listen to you if you just stand around and shout 'SERIOUSLY PEOPLE OBAMA IS TOTALLY THE NEXT HITLER' at them.
User avatar #739 to #731 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
You are right, Obama is not the next hitler and I highly doubt that he would do anything comparable to hitler. It's just the fact that Hitler took away guns. The theme of what I am saying is that we must learn from the past or it will repeat its self, definitely not as drastically as I doubt the American government is close to being bad enough to commit those atrocities commited by the nazis. I know the whole Hitler example is ridiculous and exaggerated.
User avatar #743 to #739 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Is it even relevant? Would people have risen up against him if he'd freely allowed to use of guns?

Well the jews would have, but there's no way he'd let THEM have any guns. He hardly let them have any food, so that's that.

Anyways Obama is a pretty OK guy and I definitely prefer him to Bush. He's actually doing stuff. I agree, a lot of people don't like what he's doing, and some things might not work out, but he's seriously doing his best to make the USA a better place to live.

I mean seriously I think the USA is the only country in the entire world that actually actively OPPOSES health care.
It's not a bad thing!
User avatar #753 to #743 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
That's why I called the hitler example exaggerated. (and no autocorrect, I will NOT capitalize the H in hiter)

I don't really mind him, it's just that he wants to sign executive orders to force gun control, almost as if he's a king. Congress didn't even approve of it, and he didn't want them or the bill of rights to get in the way. That's my only big problem with him.
User avatar #758 to #753 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
That is kind of a dick move. Can he do that?

Also capitalising the H in Hitler doesn't mean you acknowledge his importance or anything, it's just proper spelling, no big deal.
User avatar #762 to #758 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, proper noun. But in my opinion hitler wasn't a proper person ;P, but I understand the grammar thing, it's basically an eff you to hitler even though it doesn't matter, just for the hell of it.

That's one thing I don't know much about, executive orders. Basically, the president can put things into action himself if he feels it is absolutely necessary. As if he's more wise than the rest of America put together. There are repercussions to that though, it makes the president less popular, and if he were to do something drastic, we'd have widespread riots at best.
User avatar #773 to #762 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Well there are worse things he could be doing with that power in my opinion.


By the way exactly are they banning? No details please, just the big lines. I've heard of the assault-weapon thingy they use for 'ILLICIT LIBERALIST PROPUHGANDURRR'; so no need to explain that, just tell me what kind of firearms are effectively being banned.
User avatar #777 to #773 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Assault weapon is just a concept. The popular term for say, an m4 is an assault rifle, but in reality it's just a rifle.
User avatar #776 to #773 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
It's not that simple, because there is no fixed definition of an assault rifle/weapon. What they want to ban are models of guns that are basically black, very ergonomic, and "evil" looking, some have called them. Does that make the weapon more deadly? Not really. They are also wanting to ban magazines over 10 rounds, bayonets, and collapsible stocks. In New York, the magazines are down to 7 rounds.
User avatar #729 to #727 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
It's not that common for two people to be sensible at the same time.

Now I'm gonna thumb up everything you posted in this thread, hang on.
User avatar #759 to #729 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Wtf some guy thumbed down that comment you just wrote. As if to make you think I did it. I don't know. I'll thumb everything you do to lol.
User avatar #761 to #759 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Don't stress, I know it wasn't you.
Also I don't really care, thumbs don't mean anything, words do. Your words bring me more joy than any amount of green thumbs ever could (or any amount of red thumbs could ever take away. Unless, you know, I get banned and **** , that'd be a bummer.)
User avatar #763 to #761 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah. How would you get banned? Besides putting child porn and such on here.
User avatar #770 to #763 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
If you get too much red thumbs you get auto-banned. Safety procedure against troll accounts.
User avatar #774 to #770 - doodogger (01/25/2013) [-]
Is it about how many red thumbs one post gets, or the total you accumulate over time?
User avatar #788 to #774 - ewowo (01/25/2013) [-]
Total over time. In relation to your green thumbs of course.
This is not going to happen to you man, don't worry.
 Friends (0)