Libfags

Them $200 bullets ain't so hot when they don't hit nothin', are they?

>heavy's face when

unstable people can get hold of hammers pretty easily too, what's your point

and baseball bats, cars, and knifes. All used more in murders then guns

More assaults, yes, but not murders.
www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9
If you look at that table, you'll see that firearms make for the murder weapon in just under two thirds of all homicides that take place in the US.

yea thats the united states only because they can get hold of guns, look up rates for other countries that can't for a fair comparison of what it would be like without the guns.

Canada, seems to have very lenient gun laws:
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada - Rougly 1/3

Norway, very lenient gun laws for a European first-world nation;
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway - Roughly 1/10, though this varies wildly because of the low numbers.

Japan, stricy laws:
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan - 1/21.

The UK, very strict gun laws;
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom - Roughly 1/30.

Also, you can make anything you can grab into a weapon, fyi.

Hammers, baseball bats, a garden hose, a chain, forks, fire pokers, your fists, ect.

How many of them can hit multiple targets within a matter of seconds like a gun?

I could kill as many people with molotov cocktails as I could with a semi-automatic weapon. Should we ban glass bottles and gasoline as well?

even though I'm against gun control. I'd really like to see you try

Im completely against it too, I believe enough gun control exists already.

*than.

You have a good point.

You can't mow down a crowd of people with a hammer
inb4 thor

well if i wear to point a hammer at you and squeeze it i would look silly.

That is my point.

The. Gun. Is. A. Tool. Just like a hammer.

while i do agree with your point of view, as I own a couple hunting guns, i wouldn't care if assault weapons are banned, those are specifically made to kill people.

And several news studies have shown it's impossible to stop the off the record selling of guns because people sell them illegally in parking lots. I saw a big news report on it, this one guy was selling a barret 50 cal to complete strangers no questions asked.

I am not afraid of someone who's been trained to use a gun safely and effectively. I'm afraid of a guy who hasn't been trained with one, has a mental problem, or both.

You do that, I'll learn to melt peoples faces off with my mind.

She has her own concealed weapons permit- meaning she qualified with a personal firearm, which required her to take a test on basic safety rules.

She also has stated "She has seen many pictures of weapons and that makes her an authority on them"

That cunt wants to ban all guns on the AR/AK platform. So no more SKS,or anything that resembles the AR-15(yes,even your Ruger 22 kit would be banned).

The woman doesnt know what end makes the loud noise. And if she has a CCW then she would be limiting herself in her petty crusade against gun ownership.

I'll take your word for it. I honestly have no idea why I thought I should start an Internet argument at 10:30. My last sentence still stands, anyway; you can't say that all liberals are unsafe retards around guns.

agreed. I have friends that claim to be liberal but do enjoy shooting and know a thing or two about guns.

If it weren't for the title, I'd actually like this post. Anti-gun people should at least know how to deal with one so they don't sound like idiots.

Because like most politicians she feels as if she is more important than us lowly citizens. Her safety and liberty is more important.

Makes her a hypocrite am I right? She's all "the gun I choose to defend myself with is o.k. but not yours".

People like to imagine that if one of many beliefs someone adheres to is against their own, that the entire ideology must be the root cause

< Almost everyone on these types of threads.

Me: *skip*

Then blame it on the gun! Its brilliant!

I know! and then her law passes

red dot means the gun is hot.

enlarge. bolt actions as seen on the left have a flange or rocker safety, and when its pointed up it's engaged. the one on the right has a selector switch, and down means fire im pretty sure.

Correct, on an AK, when on safe, the safety catch actually blocks the slide, and as you can see it is below the slide, meaning its either on semi or auto

That bolt actions safety is actually the little nub on a stick right above the trigger, behind the bolt. Back is safe, forward is fire.

probably, i've only ever used larger caliber bolt actions.

Yeah, you're talking about the Mausers Safety style, which many large caliber bolt actions are based off of, including the 1903 Springfield.

he means the far left you pringus. just the same with the far right. where the "smarts" are is in the middle

and no im not a conservative im a moderate. i think both sides have fair points i think everyone should own and know how to proporly use a gun and i think the rich should pay more on their taxes.

But then they won't have enough money to hire wetbacks and then there will be riots.

that made me smile you get a thumb. treat it with care.

I'll cradle it closely.

Pretty sure "liberal" doesn't mean "far left".

because the anti-gun agenda is not supported by logic. it flies in the face of all logical things.
FACT: crime has been steadily declining (50% decrease) over the past 25 years. (source: www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)
FACT: over 84 MILLION Gun Owners committed no crimes yesterday (source: The Small Arms Survey in 2007 by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva estimated 270 million firearms in the US. )
FACT: DiFi (as she is know to her constituents) holds her own concealed weapons permit, carries daily and has a detail of 12 ARMED security guards. (source: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104)

no, you are wrong. Guns that look scary should be banned. I know because the term they use is "assault rifle" and assault means to kill someone.

Okay that made me laugh.

the thing about the "assault weapons" ban is that it is a joke used to frighten people into losing their freedom. Its all about controlling things that don't need to be controlled. i feel like I should stop spamming this link everywhere, but please read this to get an idea of what I mean-
www.assaultweapon.info/?fb_action_ids=416521765093181&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%22416521765093181%22%3A306532132800889%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22416521765093181%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]

Assault rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun, but the AR-15 happens to be one of the most popular, and to the uneducated looks scary. There are many other things I can bring to the table here, but honestly I don't really like politics on FunnyJunk.

I did enjoy learning something new about assault weapons; however I still by my statement. They should be banned. America is full of uneducated people, more so than me. These people see assault weapons as the ONLY cause of mass shootings. That's not true at all, yet they persist that they need to be banned. To make them happy, why not ban them? They will shut up and you still have a wide variety of guns. The only way you gun enthusiasts can keep their "assault" rifles is to educate America. You and I both know no one is going to be able to do that. No one cares about the truth, yet. This country loves giving their people a sense of false security. quite honestly a ban shouldn't be in place now that I know they are just as lethal as hunting rifles, but really I want stupid people to shut up.

thank you very much for keeping an open opinion, but I do very much disagree with you once again. You shouldn't ever give up your personal freedoms just to get stupid people to shut up. That is an awful idea. The media (newspapers, etc) was designed to educate people without any bias. It fails to do that today; that is why sensationalist headlines create uneducated voters. The right to bear arms should not be infringed to shut someone up. "Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both," Benjamin Franklin.

What do you want to happen then?

I want people to wise up and not allow their rights to be taken away. People are so up in arms about the school shooting that they lose all of their common sense. Honestly, I think the only way to protect the children is to arm the teachers. Give all teachers a right to keep a government approved firearm in a safe, and improve our mental health system. I think that once you are proved sane and pass a basic test, then you should have access to guns. What we really need to focus on is getting the crazies mental help and upholding the constitution that politicians swear to uphold.

Well let's be honest, mental illness and violent bursts of rage are a touchy subject. A perfectly sane person that went through the tests and gained the ability to have a gun can one day just snap. It's not just the "crazies" that you think are doing the crimes. I don't really agree that we should be arming teachers. Now having a bigger police presence I can understand.

but what can the police do? If someone were to attack a school the police cannot prevent deaths. An armed society is a polite society - Robert A. Heinlein. The people are meant to defend themselves. If everyone were to have a pistol on them, how far do you think a crazy guy would get? This is why a "gun free" zone is a terrible idea. Criminals don't follow the rules.

The police can do the same thing the armed teachers can, however, its actually their job to do so.

but they aren't in the schools. There isn't a police officer in every classroom.

also, may I ask why not arm teachers?

Well as I said before any normal "sane" person can snap and go on a shooting spree. Arming a whole bunch of teachers just doesn't sound like a good idea. What kind of environment will it create where kids will grow up know there is a gun in the teacher's desk instead of a stapler. I don't want to live in that world nor do I want my children to. Referring back to the cops, there still is an armed presence in the school. While not in the classroom exactly , they will be within the building. In my high school, there is a cop with a gun there at all times. Perhaps beef and that up and mandate that nation wide will be a good compromise for both sides?

I see what you mean about the sane person snapping and going on a shooting spree, but I think that if everyone had a gun to protect themselves and if we improved mental health treatment then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, beefing up the armed presence in schools is going to cost huge amounts for a nation in debt. Accoriding to this article, (stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/27/tragic-but-rare-odds-of-dying-in-a-school-shooting-as-in-chardon-at-least-one-in-a-million/) the chances of a student dyeing in a school shooting are no greater than one in a million. You want to save lives? there are a million better things to spend the money on. Also, can you please explain why you don't want guns in the class room? Schools in the south are already doing it with no problems.

Alright if there is a such a small chance of dying in a school shooting, then why bring guns in at all? the link doesn't work by the way. I don't want guns in schools because, in general, schools are meant for education. As society evolves, education evolves, thus school evolves. School environments change, but now if you throw guns into the mix, it will become a warzone. A semblance of safety muddled by the fact that they are carrying weapons designed to kill people. Why would you want to live in a world where everyone carries a weapon designed solely to kill? I agree we must improve mental health treatment, we have to find the source and eradicate the source. Once we destroy the cause, we destroy the effects. It is like killing a weed: you need to kill the roots in order to kill the plant. This, to me, seems like a better solution than just cutting the top part of a problematic plant and expecting it to go away.

stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/27/tragic-but-rare-odds-of-dying-in-a-school-shooting-as-in-chardon-at-least-one-in-a-million/

the link decided to include the parentheses. I think we see firearms very differently from each other. To me, it's a sport as well as self defense; much like archery, I do competitive shooting in the summer with my dad. With proper education and respect, guns are not dangerous. It's people using them to kill other humans that makes them dangerous. For this reason, I fail to see how having guns in schools would create a war zone, especially since according to an MSNBC article from three years ago there are six million people already carrying concealed firearms all throughout the U.S. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/ Carrying a pistol around isn't so "rednecks" can put 10 bullets on a roadside deer, its to protect themselves and the people around them. I do solemnly believe that if everyone had a weapon of their own at all times, crime would go down. Would you want to rob a store? Start a school shooting perhaps, then try to deal with the 200 law abiding teachers with pistols to match yours? I hope my links are in order this time haha.

The problem here is that the right to bear arms is being infringed upon, a right that is guaranteed by the United States Constitution which is SUPPOSED to be the supreme law of the land. It states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary tot he security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So you see these weapons aren't for hunting like you said they are there so we can maintain our freedom against a tyranny should it ever come to it.

What you say is true but like the man above me said, times do change. It says that the it is the right of the people (a.k.a us) to keep and bear arms which could and has been interpreted by the United State Supreme court to mean that it is within our individual rights to posses a firearm which was made official in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. It's because of interpretations like this that allowed the Constitution and the rights it guarantees to be applied throughout our countries history otherwise it would have been out of date centuries ago. For example if we never interpreted the Constitution in any way except for strictly what the founding fathers may have felt was relevant at their time then films and video games would never have been protected under the First Amendment.

We have the National Guard to do what a colonial militia would do in their time. The people don't really need guns the same way they needed them for invasion; however, I do agree that we should be armed for tyranny. I'm not for banning all guns and the government should fear us rather than the other way around. Sadly, we fear the government more and think they are taking away our rights. If it really want a serious infrigement that amercians can't live without, why not prove a point and use your "right" to fight against "tyranny" and tell the government to fuck off. People must realize that's ridiculous and we can do without assault rifles. We can still fight of tyranny if it arises with the other firearms available

There are tons of people who are against the ban of assault weapons so it's not like they're not using their right to fight against tyranny, the problem is that the ban of assault weapons has a surprisingly strong amount of support, mostly due to the massacres of recent years. While I'm sure the supporters mean well, I feel that they are misguided by fear and a lack of knowledge. As for the National Guard, yes they're state funded but when deployed for war they work for the federal government. Also take into consideration that if in the event of a civil war if your state were to side with the federal government you would be facing your own state militia. Now personally if that were to happen to me I'd leave the state but in the event that I may have to fight them I'd want a rifle that hold a little more than a paltry ten rounds.

Not really. If a government official tells you to do something, guess how fast your ass will be in prison if you pull a fucking gun on them because you perceive it as "MUH FREEDUMZ R BEIN INFRINJED"

Assault weapons are basically any semiautomatic rifle that looks scary. So any civilian AR-15 or stuff like that is just basically a hunting rifle that looks like a military AR-15, but the media and left are calling them 2spooky and trying to make them sound like assault rifles.

Because man, they are pretty fuckin cool lol. And i dont think we should change anything because the men who wrote everything in the Bill of Rights sacrificed a lot to get to that point. Just because there are some horrible people, should everyone suffer? Just because people protest and make fun of gays or talk about how the men who fight for our country are all bad people. Should we do away with the first amendment and punish everyone? I know ill get thumbed down but just consider it man. Not everyone with Assault rifles are insane.

Though I kind of hate people who say "libfags" or "teabillies" and other such phrases, compromise is for lawmakers who actually need to get stuff done. I don't see any reason for me, a private citizen, to make concessions to people I think are wrong.

Doesn't fucking matter.
It shows a poor sense of responsibility and safety around potentially dangerous tools.
Also, that she has no idea how to handle firearms, or the procedure would apply to props without conscious effort.

Thats a pile of crap right there

Exactly.
One would expect more of that spokeswoman.

I was talking about your illogical and moronic argument.
If that is a prop gun how is it potentially dangerous? And no shit she doesn't know how to handle a firearm, she's a anti gun activist, would you expect a vegetarian to be excellent at hunting?

I made no illogical and moronic argument.
While you can handle a prop gun carelessly without posing danger to anyone, letting the standards of how to handle firearms (finger off the trigger, treat as loaded, point into safe direction, etc.) slip is a stupid idea no matter how you put it.
People die from those mistakes.

And yes, I expect someone lobbying for specific legislation to be very familiar with the subject it is about. Weird, huh?

You would be safe in my arms