Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#828 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
Um yeah Assault Rifles should be BANNED in USA --- FOR CITIZENS that is.

Only police and Military need such weapons.

Not goddamn civilians...Unless of course, USA gets invaded and Civies have to literally defend their homes against similar caliber weaponry....

I mean...jesus.....

There's a reason civilians don't openly own tactical nukes, bombs, or cannons.
User avatar #846 to #828 - ShadeElement (04/22/2013) [-]
People who are opposed to civilian AR's don't know **** about AR's.

It is already illegal for civilians to own an automatic weapon.
There are already legal limits to how much ammunition a single magazine can hold.
I can cycle my Marlin '94 or my Remington 870 about as fast as you can pull the trigger on a semi-auto. Both of which fire a much more devastating round than an AR.

So go ahead, ban Assault Rifles. Hell, lets just magically make them all disappear.
The next mass shooter will just use a home defense shotgun and some hand made pipe bombs. That kind of carnage in a crowded urban environment will leave you longing for the days they used a Bushmaster .223.
#844 to #828 - anonymous (04/22/2013) [-]
So you're saying the plot from "Red Dawn" is not realistic? ;)
User avatar #834 to #828 - pebar (04/22/2013) [-]
if civilians don't need them, police don't need them either
#843 to #834 - jujuface ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
The only reason the police here have them is to protect us against the citizens who have them. Logic right? It's crazy
User avatar #847 to #843 - pebar (04/22/2013) [-]
'cept police aren't legally obligated to protect people so why should people trust them to?
#873 to #847 - jujuface ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
Also if you don't still don't accept that your statement contains a fallacy, then consider this: You can protect your own damn self just fine with a pistol, or a shotgun.
#864 to #847 - jujuface ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
If legal obligation means anything to you, then people aren't legally obligated to hurt you either, inf fact they're legally obligated not to do so. So you've got nothing to worry about :)
User avatar #870 to #864 - pebar (04/22/2013) [-]
it's not their job to protect people
#877 to #870 - jujuface ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
Their job is to uphold the law. Guess whats against the law? Murder/Assault.
User avatar #886 to #877 - pebar (04/22/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayarch&ar ticleid=341&issue_id=72004
#950 to #886 - jujuface ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-]
>implies police have to monitor anyone with a restraining order 24/7
>Warren v. Columbia...I see your point. Doesn't support the legality of assault rifles but I do see how one could argue the need for self defense with a weapon
 Friends (0)