|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #38659 on CommentsLevel 145 Comments: Faptastic
OfflineSend mail to Griffino Block Griffino Invite Griffino to be your friend
latest user's comments
|#598 - I treat my boy like a boy and my girl like a girl. Omg, people…||02/04/2014 on Didney princess||-3|
|#97 - 1. nope...who cares 2. maybe 3. educated people worry … [+] (3 new replies)||10/12/2013 on more politics||+2|
#99 - theism (10/12/2013) [-]
A significant change in the functionality of guns in completely relevant to a discussion on gun control. In 1776 military grade firearms were single shot muskets that were only really effective in volley fire against multiple targets. Nowadays we have semi-automatic weapons and a whole range of ways to make them even nastier.
The second amendment is about militias, if you can read at a third grade level you would know this.
Yes, but do you need high powered rifles to stop them? Chances are they will be armed with nothing deadlier than a knife or a lead pipe. Maybe they'll have a handgun but chances are they won't hit shit with it. Good luck standing up to the US military with your ten round mag AR-15. That'll stand up well against a drone strike.
What is this post about? The fucking affordable care act. What are the republicans doing that's relevant to the affordable care act? Shutting the fucking government down you ignorant piece of shit.
The conservatives are also pushing to some degree for gun control. Acting like it's a democratic/ liberal thing only is ignorant.
There are people in the US who behave like the Somalis. How well do you think Detroit or LA would handle completely unregulated guns?
Not at all off topic. If anything, gun control is off topic to the discussion of the healthcare law.
#103 - proudnerd (10/12/2013) [-]
Couple things: During the LA Riots, that only thing that stood between a rioting mob and a few store owners were those very same assault rifles. They're not good for everyday defense. Also, it's about a protection from tyranny. Sure, the military may be much better trained, but they are heavily outnumbered. It's more symbolic than anything, but could possibly have some practical applications.
And Republicans aren't pushing for gun control. That's just wrong. Also, I'd like to point out gun violence is highest in areas where it is illegal to have guns (New York, Chicago). Think about it. It is a criminal act to have a gun, so only criminals are armed. That sounds like a brilliant plan to me. And making it illegal to get guns totally stops criminals from getting them. The same concept works with marijuana doesn't it?
Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any regulations on gun ownership. I just think the current laws would do the trick if they were actually enforced. I don't think we need to do anything more. I think that before passing any legislation to restrict gun ownership, you must first ask the question "Can I ensure that this WILL keep guns out of criminal hands and won't just keep them out of law-abiding citizens' hands?" If you can't say yes, then you shouldn't pass that law.
As an afterthought, I think we should do some regulation with who buys bulletproof clothing. The worst gun violence incidences are those where the criminal is armored. And think about it, if you're buying a bulletproof vest, your planning on being shot at. So maybe we should be checking out who buys those.
#105 - theism (10/12/2013) [-]
Well if we had a better police force we wouldn't have needed civilian intervention, however I have no problem with people OWNING these firearms, however I still think we need some kind of regulation for them. Civilians trying to fight the US military in this day and age would be impractical. The hardware alone for the US military outclasses anything the average citizen could ever dream of owning.
Conservatives as well as liberals agree on universal background checks, at least the citizens do. Politicians might lean differently on this. These areas also have rampant poverty, high population density and horrible education. much more significant factors no? And the point isn't fully to prevent people from owning guns, just to make it much more difficult for dangerous people to own them.
Of course we shouldn't ban guns. That would never work in this country. They've been around for too long and there's just too many. Not to mention the number of people who know how to make their own. Just it really should be more difficult to get a hold of one.
That's actually really sensible. You should write a letter to your local representative.
|#36 - Ok, I ******* on your picture then tried to close… [+] (2 new replies)||08/23/2013 on going through the dvds,...||+2|
|#52 - You're wrong because the guy is being cynical.||07/17/2013 on Tumblr||0|
|#31 - yes, and we knew the information Snowden leaked. The point is,…||07/03/2013 on Oh, dear||0|
|#375 - I had the vision of someone biting into a chicken's breast wit…||05/23/2013 on Vegans||+1|
|#21 - I guarantee, a f-250 diesel pulling a >1500lb trailer will … [+] (1 new reply)||05/14/2013 on You don't need a 3500HD to...||+8|
|#19 - But those stupid people are well aware that an efficient use o… [+] (3 new replies)||05/14/2013 on You don't need a 3500HD to...||+7|
|#27 - What I find amazing is, the tree sees it coming and moves away… [+] (1 new reply)||05/14/2013 on Because stairs are too...||+2|
|#305 - you made my day! [+] (1 new reply)||04/21/2013 on Muricaaaa||0|