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.
User avatar #745 - vanoreo (04/23/2013) [-]
>Prevents stealing of innocent people's weapons
>Prevents retards from spending all of their money on unnecessary ****
#752 to #745 - ThePleasureman (04/23/2013) [-]
>Criminals will steal whatever they want
>The USA is capitalistic

User avatar #764 to #752 - vanoreo (04/23/2013) [-]
THEY CAN'T STEAL ANYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING TO STEAL
User avatar #768 to #764 - Keleth (04/23/2013) [-]
THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING TO STEAL

and when they come to steal your **** your gonna wish you or someone around you had a gun to at least scare them off
User avatar #766 to #764 - ThePleasureman (04/23/2013) [-]
So youre saying they wont get guns anyway, and commit crimes with them; you're also saying that i shouldn't be allowed to defend myself?
User avatar #812 to #766 - vanoreo (04/23/2013) [-]
Not only are the odds remarkably low that you personally will get attacked but if they can't buy them normally it makes them harder to get.

Some school shooters aren't exactly a social bunch so they don't usually have mob ties.
#820 to #812 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
Something bad only has to happen once for me to lose my life. So Il gladly take a gun knowing it makes me less likely to join the people who have been killed this year due to violent gun related crime. Anti gun people rarely form a rational argument based on facts. All it is with people like you is "Muh Feelins". You cant base your opinion on something on presumptions as to how you think stuff works, like a kid buying an illegal firearm. If someones buying, there's someone selling. And no making LEGAL guns harder to buy does not make it harder for criminals to own them illegally. Because criminals once they have committed a felony cant own guns , so any they own is illegal. So if I'm a criminal, and i want a gun to commit a crime i will get the gun ILLEGALLY bypassing whatever ******* law the liberals made. Your ignorance and pure stupidity of the subject of gun control amazes me so i have to reply to you regardless of the date.
User avatar #822 to #820 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Also it's not at all about "muh feelins"

It's more about how people should be spending their money on less retarded stuff other than ending the lives of others
User avatar #824 to #822 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
Heard of cigarettes? Welcome to free capitalism. If you don't like it, leave.
User avatar #826 to #824 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Heard of meth?

Imagine if that were legal.
User avatar #828 to #826 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
what legal and regulated? And taxed? Why not? I don't give a **** what you put in your body.
User avatar #830 to #828 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you know what happens to a meth addict who can't get more meth because he spent all of his money on meth?
#834 to #830 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
They go rob a gun toting patriot and get shot?
User avatar #821 to #820 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Less guns around (in vendors etc.)
=
less guns to steal
#823 to #821 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
There's more guns in america then there are people so good luck with that. Reduce the amount of product a buisness can sell through law? Isnt that illegal? What are you going to do with the guns people already own? Take them? Go for it, see what happens.
User avatar #825 to #823 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
IF YOU TAKE AWAY MY GUNS I WILL SHOOT YOU

-completely reasonable gun owner
#827 to #825 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
I dont mean to be cliche but,

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>shall not be infringed

Yes that is what a reasonable responsible gun owner would say.
Because we dont have the right to an AR-15 to only hunt boar.
User avatar #829 to #827 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Okay, for one thing, the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1788. Back then the guns in mind were muskets that took several minutes to load one shot into.

Not a ~30 round rapid fire rifle that takes a moment to pack more death into.


Secondly, I'm fine with gun ownership provided they're used for hunting (which I know can be used for murder too, I'm not ******* stupid) But a fully automatic gun to kill one guy robbing you (which in itself is a ******* longshot) is just overkill.

Killing shouldn't be a thing that people need to worry about.
#831 to #829 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah it shouldn't be a thing people have to worry about, too bad it is. No you dont need A full auto AK-47 to kill one guy. You dont even need an AK. But there isnt always one guy, more than often its multiple people.

And when Cujo and his gang bangers decide to rob me on meth, I might need that 30 round magazine. When 3 guys on meth kick in my door with AK-47s i dont want a glock, i dont want a shotgun, i want an AK. And before you say The chances of that are astronomical go ask the victims of the 2,018 home invasions of 2010 about how they feel about that.

And for your "Hurr bill of rights is old durr" BS , The 2nd amendment ( December 15, 1791, check your **** ) is there to protect you from your government and foreign invaders. Its the 2nd because its the 2nd thing they though was ridiculously important too keep our country free. without the second amendment all your other rights are forfeit under a tyrannical government. I dont beleive there will be a tyrant in my life time but i cant say that for the people living 200 years from now. I bet theyll be saying how ignorant you were for thinking they dont need a gun, just as you think the founding fathers were ignorant of todays technology

And fyi AR15 and most AKs owned by citizens arnt fully automatic

User avatar #832 to #831 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Oh well then I'm done arguing with you

have fun feeling like you won even when you didn't
#833 to #832 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
I pooped on your argument on every front

BTW Good job right there being immature and using bully tactics to make it sound like you're supirior to me. Really redeeming of your character.
User avatar #835 to #833 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Not really

and if anyone was using bully tactics it was you.

Referring to the images you used and the childish grammar and the "hurrs and durrs"

I just don't feel like arguing with people overly headstrong and over the internet anymore

at least not since I turned 13
#836 to #835 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
>Not really implies its still there
>My images make a point
> hurr durr is internet jargon
>Grammar Nazi
>You don't feel like arguing with people who make better points than you
>You cant make a solid point as to why your belief is the correct belief
>You're 13 lurk more
User avatar #837 to #836 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Your images imply an entire group of people are stupid (liberals as a general populus)
which is ******** in any group

hurr durr is internet jargon for "look at me I'm ******* retarded" in the sense of mocking someone else

what?

it's just not worth arguing over. Neither of us can change anything from this, neither of us are qualified, and we are both certainly flawed in many areas

My belief is not the correct one and neither is yours, I just think people shouldn't need to kill each other

I'm not 13, I'm saying I haven't enjoyed arguing on the internet since before I was 13.

also lurk more? I've been on places like this for over half a decade.
#838 to #837 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
My images imply the heads of the party in question make absolutely no sense logically. There not stupid by any means, I just believe they are taking guns to benefit themselves

It is worth arguing over, its a right and a very importatnt one. Besides argument makes your arguments better

People shouldnt need to kill eachother, but some people do need to defend themselves you can say how they can or cant.




User avatar #841 to #838 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Liberalism isn't a party and no "party" makes sense

Only a nice middle area makes sense

and how would it benefit obama to take away guns?
(so him and his black people can rob without worry?)

and since I can't determine how people defend themselves I'm going to go out and buy a nuclear bomb because i have a right to bear ar- OH WAIT
User avatar #854 to #841 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
No

But its their money, they can spend it on whatever they want
User avatar #850 to #841 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
The thing is... people already are checked.
The other thing is you cant stop crazy

Why are you so caught up with what people spend their money on?
its none of your business. You're practically saying " don't contribute to the economy "

User avatar #852 to #850 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
I sleep now

phanact take over and call him homosexual
User avatar #851 to #850 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
It's just irresponsible use of money

would you be thrilled if your kids bought 400 dildos with all of their money in their 20s?
User avatar #846 to #841 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
Im not against background checks, we have background checks. Of course being against back ground checks is generally ******* retarded. Im just against the gradual degradation of rights which is ******* retarded to be for. ie. universal background check, and gun registry. Read that white thing i posted with the text
User avatar #848 to #846 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's why I brought it up.

Everyone should be checked if they're mentally stable enough to own a gun if it has to be legal

every time they purchase weapons or ammo

They're clearly ****** with money though
User avatar #844 to #841 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
party is a group of people who share the same ideals
User avatar #843 to #841 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
Cost to benefit ratio of a nuke is ridiculous and so is that argument.
User avatar #847 to #843 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
Nukes kill you everyone around you, everyone down the street and the majority of the people in the town youre in

cost > benefit
User avatar #845 to #843 - vanoreo (05/09/2013) [-]
+50% tax on ammo might help

but wait that would be an inconvenience to the gun owner lolz


And being against background checks is just generally ******* retarded
User avatar #840 to #839 - ThePleasureman (05/09/2013) [-]
I dont feel like arguing anymore either, here have music

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS_ux2H473I
 Friends (0)