| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Channels |
| User Rankings |
#135
-
Dudedog (01/26/2013) [-] Seriously I don't understand what the problem is here. Is it really that bad if an ******* weapons ban is reinstated? What good use do civilians have with military designed weapons that were designed to kill other people? I understand it's a right that Americans hold dearly, but come on I'm sure you can deal without ******* rifles. I'm sure the deer you're hunting only needs one bullet. Besides, we take the 2nd Amendment out of context anyway. That amendment was written at a time when it was necessary for the people to arm themselves for literal dangers like indian raids, looters, and vagabonds. Not to mention 1700s America wasn't very urban or industrialized. Times change and so should how we interpret aged documents.
#179 to #135
-
SonofChuck (01/26/2013) [-] 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.
#189 to #179
-
2scared2login (01/26/2013) [-]
The intention of the second amendment was to keep American civilians safe in the event of a British invasion (think War of 1812). It was also intended for them to be trained as a militia. Militiamen were not to keep their combat weapons on hand, but in a communal armory, in case of an attack on the nation. Besides that, small firearms or hunting weapons were fine, but that was it. Instead, right wing gun-nuts extort the original context of this, just like the wbc extorts the bible. That is NOT what the second amendment was for, and those arguing for a lack of gun control are, frankly, borderline idiotic.
#206 to #189
-
SonofChuck (01/26/2013) [-] 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.
#229 to #206
-
Dudedog (01/26/2013) [-] 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 **** off. People must realize that's ridiculous and we can do without ******* rifles. We can still fight of tyranny if it arises with the other firearms available
#237 to #229
-
SonofChuck (01/27/2013) [-] There are tons of people who are against the ban of ******* weapons so it's not like they're not using their right to fight against tyranny, the problem is that the ban of ******* weapons has a surprisingly strong amount of support, mostly due to the ********* 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.
#155 to #135
-
onetufftoaster (01/26/2013) [-]
Because man, they are pretty ****** 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 ******* rifles are insane.
#141 to #135
-
2scared2login (01/26/2013) [-]
dude, the 2nd amendment was designed to protect citizens from the government itself. When there were still colonies, armed British soldiers could enter a colonial's house at any time and force them to basically do whatever the soldiers wanted. We have the second amendment so that if a soldier, or FBI agent, or whatever, came into our house and started bossing us around, we can legitimately tell them to **** off
#140 to #135
-
stripey (01/26/2013) [-] the thing about the " ******* 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-
You need to login to view this link
******* 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.
You need to login to view this link
******* 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.
#230 to #140
-
Dudedog (01/26/2013) [-] I did enjoy learning something new about ******* weapons; however I still by my statement. They should be banned. America is full of uneducated people, more so than me. These people see ******* weapons as the ONLY cause of **** 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 " ******* " 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.
#231 to #230
-
stripey (01/26/2013) [-] 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.
#245 to #244
-
stripey (01/28/2013) [-] 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 **** 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.
#246 to #245
-
Dudedog (01/28/2013) [-] 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.
#247 to #246
-
stripey (01/28/2013) [-] 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.
#250 to #249
-
Dudedog (01/28/2013) [-] 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 ********* 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?
#251 to #250
-
stripey (01/29/2013) [-] 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, (
You need to login to view this link
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 ***** room? Schools in the south are already doing it with no problems.
#252 to #251
-
Dudedog (01/29/2013) [-] 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.
#253 to #252
-
stripey (01/29/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link
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. You need to login to view this link 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 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. You need to login to view this link 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.
