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

hide menu

xheavymetalx    

no avatar Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to xheavymetalx Block xheavymetalx Invite xheavymetalx to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/08/2011
Last Login:11/08/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 231 total,  287 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 2487 total,  3429 ,  942
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 23 Content: Peasant → Level 24 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 35% (35/100)
Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:6722
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:943
FJ Points:2694
Favorite Tags: Cleverbot (3) | stalker (2)

latest user's comments

#16 - This should apply to songs/albums as well. 03/21/2013 on Piratism 0
#184 - More than what you've got done.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/19/2013 on The fire within 0
#185 - bulbakip (03/19/2013) [-]
I've done ur mom.
#295 - LOL I didn't mean those kind of pics. I was just talkin bout w…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/11/2013 on Just Right... -1
#300 - BlueToaster (03/11/2013) [-]
OH.......


Well okay.
#279 - wut?  [+] (3 new replies) 03/11/2013 on Just Right... -1
User avatar #281 - BlueToaster (03/11/2013) [-]
Go to NSFW. They'll be willing to spot ya.
#295 - xheavymetalx (03/11/2013) [-]
LOL I didn't mean those kind of pics. I was just talkin bout wallpapers and such.
#300 - BlueToaster (03/11/2013) [-]
OH.......


Well okay.
#273 - Hinata pictures thread? For um... scientific purposes?  [+] (5 new replies) 03/11/2013 on Just Right... +1
User avatar #275 - BlueToaster (03/11/2013) [-]
Wrong section, dude.
#279 - xheavymetalx (03/11/2013) [-]
wut?
User avatar #281 - BlueToaster (03/11/2013) [-]
Go to NSFW. They'll be willing to spot ya.
#295 - xheavymetalx (03/11/2013) [-]
LOL I didn't mean those kind of pics. I was just talkin bout wallpapers and such.
#300 - BlueToaster (03/11/2013) [-]
OH.......


Well okay.
#204 - That is ******* beautiful dude. I wish I could se… 03/11/2013 on This reminds me of a George... 0
#203 - So, that makes it any better? Just because it's being done by … 03/11/2013 on This reminds me of a George... 0
#202 - Read the description. Derp.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/11/2013 on This reminds me of a George... 0
#205 - tenthousandmarbles (03/11/2013) [-]
Awe shit, all i saw was george carlin and then the bullshit picture. My mistake guess it is kinda similar.
#80 - No one ever said to disarm the entire population. THAT is losi…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/25/2013 on Guns kill people 0
User avatar #85 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
But let me tell you something else if you didn't already know. It only takes a small .22 to cause a "mass shooting". How do you prevent that?
User avatar #83 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
Then tell me what you would do? They have already taken our right to open carry in California (which we were constantly harassed by police officers for doing absolutely nothing. They had no probable cause.) The fact that people come up with the "disarm the population" as a solution is NOT the solution. In America, your rights are being taken away by the thousands, if not, millions daily. Have you ever been to a court hearing and plead "no contest"? The completely strip you of your rights and blatantly tell you that you have no rights before your sentence. It's getting to the point that Americans are their own demise. Think of a proper solution and I will back it 100%. If they want to do psychological exams before you can purchase a firearm, I would back that 100%. If you can only own a certain type of firearm only once per person, I would back that 100% (long rifle, shotgun, handgun).
#76 - So, if we have a different opinion, we should leave the countr…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/25/2013 on Guns kill people 0
User avatar #78 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
SO. You are willing to lose your constitutional rights? That's basically what you are saying. What a true American.....
#80 - xheavymetalx (02/25/2013) [-]
No one ever said to disarm the entire population. THAT is losing your constitutional rights. Restricting gun distribution and usage is just being responsible. Even the constitution says "WELL REGULATED".
User avatar #85 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
But let me tell you something else if you didn't already know. It only takes a small .22 to cause a "mass shooting". How do you prevent that?
User avatar #83 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
Then tell me what you would do? They have already taken our right to open carry in California (which we were constantly harassed by police officers for doing absolutely nothing. They had no probable cause.) The fact that people come up with the "disarm the population" as a solution is NOT the solution. In America, your rights are being taken away by the thousands, if not, millions daily. Have you ever been to a court hearing and plead "no contest"? The completely strip you of your rights and blatantly tell you that you have no rights before your sentence. It's getting to the point that Americans are their own demise. Think of a proper solution and I will back it 100%. If they want to do psychological exams before you can purchase a firearm, I would back that 100%. If you can only own a certain type of firearm only once per person, I would back that 100% (long rifle, shotgun, handgun).
#74 - ... are you high? Where in my comment did I say anything un-American?  [+] (6 new replies) 02/25/2013 on Guns kill people 0
User avatar #75 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
I am talking about people "Hate" living in America. "Too many guns" "Ban guns". Just move. Nobody is stopping you. People don't leave because they are getting their wel-fare checks, SSI checks because their daddy was killed in a gang related shooting. It gets old fast. And I wasn't comparing Obama in general, just gun control laws. I honestly like Obama more than any republican candidate.
#76 - xheavymetalx (02/25/2013) [-]
So, if we have a different opinion, we should leave the country? That goes against the entire fucking basis of democracy.
User avatar #78 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
SO. You are willing to lose your constitutional rights? That's basically what you are saying. What a true American.....
#80 - xheavymetalx (02/25/2013) [-]
No one ever said to disarm the entire population. THAT is losing your constitutional rights. Restricting gun distribution and usage is just being responsible. Even the constitution says "WELL REGULATED".
User avatar #85 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
But let me tell you something else if you didn't already know. It only takes a small .22 to cause a "mass shooting". How do you prevent that?
User avatar #83 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
Then tell me what you would do? They have already taken our right to open carry in California (which we were constantly harassed by police officers for doing absolutely nothing. They had no probable cause.) The fact that people come up with the "disarm the population" as a solution is NOT the solution. In America, your rights are being taken away by the thousands, if not, millions daily. Have you ever been to a court hearing and plead "no contest"? The completely strip you of your rights and blatantly tell you that you have no rights before your sentence. It's getting to the point that Americans are their own demise. Think of a proper solution and I will back it 100%. If they want to do psychological exams before you can purchase a firearm, I would back that 100%. If you can only own a certain type of firearm only once per person, I would back that 100% (long rifle, shotgun, handgun).
#69 - You must be really ******* stupid to compare Obam…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/25/2013 on Guns kill people 0
User avatar #73 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
If you don't like America, pack your shit and go to Canada. Nobody is stopping you. People whine and complain behind a fucking keyboard all day, but don't do shit about it. If you want to really say "FUCK THIS AMERICAN BULLSHIT", then leave. No one is saying you can't live in Canada or you can't live in Europe. Riddle me that fag.
#74 - xheavymetalx (02/25/2013) [-]
... are you high? Where in my comment did I say anything un-American?
User avatar #75 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
I am talking about people "Hate" living in America. "Too many guns" "Ban guns". Just move. Nobody is stopping you. People don't leave because they are getting their wel-fare checks, SSI checks because their daddy was killed in a gang related shooting. It gets old fast. And I wasn't comparing Obama in general, just gun control laws. I honestly like Obama more than any republican candidate.
#76 - xheavymetalx (02/25/2013) [-]
So, if we have a different opinion, we should leave the country? That goes against the entire fucking basis of democracy.
User avatar #78 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
SO. You are willing to lose your constitutional rights? That's basically what you are saying. What a true American.....
#80 - xheavymetalx (02/25/2013) [-]
No one ever said to disarm the entire population. THAT is losing your constitutional rights. Restricting gun distribution and usage is just being responsible. Even the constitution says "WELL REGULATED".
User avatar #85 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
But let me tell you something else if you didn't already know. It only takes a small .22 to cause a "mass shooting". How do you prevent that?
User avatar #83 - stiffbeefyone (02/25/2013) [-]
Then tell me what you would do? They have already taken our right to open carry in California (which we were constantly harassed by police officers for doing absolutely nothing. They had no probable cause.) The fact that people come up with the "disarm the population" as a solution is NOT the solution. In America, your rights are being taken away by the thousands, if not, millions daily. Have you ever been to a court hearing and plead "no contest"? The completely strip you of your rights and blatantly tell you that you have no rights before your sentence. It's getting to the point that Americans are their own demise. Think of a proper solution and I will back it 100%. If they want to do psychological exams before you can purchase a firearm, I would back that 100%. If you can only own a certain type of firearm only once per person, I would back that 100% (long rifle, shotgun, handgun).
#525 - If anyone here thinks that the federal government is actually …  [+] (9 new replies) 02/23/2013 on Basically +5
#549 - Womens Study Major (02/23/2013) [-]
Well, the "disarm the entire population" part is pretty much true. I guarantee if they get this legislation through, the next target will be DEADLY COP-KILLING SNIPER RIFLES (Hunting Rifles) and then CONCEALABLE KID-KILLING TOOLS OF DEATH (Handguns). The Brits have already gone through this process, so we know that the natural evolution of events is towards more restrictions. Most people aren't anticipating the government going fascist, but it's always good to have a last resort in case shit does hit the fan. "Why do you NEED a fire extinguisher? Are you expecting your house to catch on fire? You must be a paranoid coward."

Also, in a war, an armed populace is a great deterrent for invaders.
#558 - Womens Study Major (02/23/2013) [-]
In a war in which US citizens are actually involved it's most likely going to be nuclear explosions and subsequent radiation sickness that would kill you, no one the US picks a fight with has the capacity to actually invade.
#577 - Womens Study Major (02/23/2013) [-]
Nukes have only been used twice in war, and those were 1/10th as powerful as the ones we have today. I wouldn't anticipate nukes being involved that heavily in war, especially if the aggressor has nukes as well.
User avatar #526 - amateriandarknut (02/23/2013) [-]
Starting with the "assault rifles" is always the start.
User avatar #531 - kwanzalord (02/23/2013) [-]
then again...
assault weapons are "illegal" in the US.
Assault styled aka they look like assault weapons, is legal.
Though I'd imagine the people buying these assault weapons are the same idiots ruining it for everyone else.
"cool, looks like an AK...imma shoot stuff with it herp derp"
#553 - Womens Study Major (02/23/2013) [-]
AK's are cheap and reliable, AR-15's are precise and very modular. These rifles are owned because they are useful. Don't just blindly state that everyone who owns semi-automatic rifles are CAWADOOTY faggots.
#563 - Womens Study Major (02/23/2013) [-]
Yup I often find a use for my AK47 in my every day life. It's so useful.
#566 - Womens Study Major (02/23/2013) [-]
Hunting, going to the range, dissuading home invaders, preserving liberty. Yep, indeed it is.
User avatar #571 - kwanzalord (02/23/2013) [-]
Don't forget, you can always use them as flower vases.
#451 - Again, no one said Obama was going to get officials to physica…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/22/2013 on -Obama 0
User avatar #458 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
And all of that I agree with, yes there should be records, yes there should be regulations, but he shouldn't be able to completely ban assault rifles which is what he's trying to do.
#368 - First of all, he wouldn't be able to successfully make that ki…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/22/2013 on -Obama 0
User avatar #374 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
People elected Obama as well, the fact of the matter is the majority of the country can vote, regardless of how dumb they are and how little they know about what they're voting for. So no, it's not "fair" just because other people who were voted for, like Obama, get a say. No I don't think it's for the best just because one guy went crazy and shot a bunch of children. Drugs are illegal, but people who want to sell and use drugs even though it's illegal still get them. I choose not to break the law, so I don't have any drugs. The same can be assumed for guns. If the law says we can't have them, I won't have any because I am a law-abiding citizen. However, gang bangers and whoever else may want to commit a murder will be able to get them ILLEGALLY. The only difference is that now that it's illegal, if they break into my house and have their illegal guns, I no longer have any way to protect myself. On a side note I love how everyone refers to guns as deadly weapons but nothing else. Tell me, people are stabbed every day, should we also regulate knife laws and ban knives that resemble machetes or bayonets? Or how about blunt instruments?
#451 - xheavymetalx (02/22/2013) [-]
Again, no one said Obama was going to get officials to physically take away your weapons. You don't need advanced weaponry to defend your house, nor should gun distributors keep no record of their inventory, nor should just ANYONE be able to get guns at a local store. Sure, law abiding citizens should have guns. But even the constitution says "well regulated". There has to be a system to make sure that the people who do own guns are the ones that won't kill innocent people with them.
User avatar #458 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
And all of that I agree with, yes there should be records, yes there should be regulations, but he shouldn't be able to completely ban assault rifles which is what he's trying to do.
User avatar #394 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
You're a lot less likely to kill somebody from across the room with a knife. If you're so incredibly paranoid that somebody is going to break into your house and try to kill you then move to another country, because unless you sleep with your gun at night it wont likely stop somebody who breaks into your house.
User avatar #400 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
It's still a deadly weapon, unless you're a good shot you aren't likely to kill someone with a gun either. And there's a difference between paranoia and realization of a real threat.
User avatar #410 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
That's not exactly realization of a threat, you just make it sound like you're paranoid about it. It's only a real threat if something like that keeps happening around where you live, THEN I can understand the need for keeping a weapon nearby.
User avatar #412 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I live in the bad part of St. Louis, Missouri. It happens repeatedly in my neighborhood and neighborhoods surrounding my house. So yes, maybe I am paranoid, but it's a healthy paranoia.
User avatar #418 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
Paranoia is never healthy...but I can see having a weapon at hand if you live in a bad area.
User avatar #424 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Exactly, so you see my point. To some people they're necessary, and I'm one of them. I was raised learning how to use them and now I fear that I may need to use them, therefor I'd like to have them at hand.
User avatar #441 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
I really don't care if somebody wants to own a gun, my only pet peeve is people who think they need to own like an automatic assault rifle or a mini gun or something crazy like that.
User avatar #447 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I understand that completely, no one needs a machine gun or an SMG or whatever kind of automatic gun they may think is absolutely necessary. Now say you're ex-military, you're trained to use an automatic assault rifle, do you NEED one? No. Should you be ALLOWED to own one? Why not? But an ex-marine isn't an ordinary civilian. He's a trained weapon himself. So it seems to me that you and I have similar views on this issue.
#333 - So womens' right to their reproductive systems = right for eve… 02/21/2013 on -Obama 0
#330 - Name a reform that Obama has pushed for to disarm the populati…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/21/2013 on -Obama -3
#875 - chardlz (02/22/2013) [-]
Well, he has pushed for many reforms to essentially remove any and all "assault weapons" which is even worse than Clinton's ban. That's some crazy stuff if Clinton is more moderate than you.
#328 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 02/21/2013 on -Obama 0
#495 - Womens Study Major (02/22/2013) [-]
The people who founded the companies dumbass.
#327 - There's a difference between basic human civil liberties and a…  [+] (27 new replies) 02/21/2013 on -Obama +4
User avatar #361 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
He is pushing for a ban on any rifle that looks similar to an assault rifle, even if it doesn't function the same way. A ban would include the removal of our ability to own firearms. He is trying to limit our ability to own firearms at all, not just edit what we can/cannot own as accessories for them and he has repeatedly emphasized his support on bans of any semi-automatic guns that resemble assault rifles. Basically saying if it looks like something you've seen a soldier carry, even if it isn't full-auto, he wants it gone, end of story. If you don't believe me and you think I'm the only one who thinks that's what he's doing, walk into your nearest armory and see how much of the stock is gone because people want to load up before he succeeds in passing it.
User avatar #397 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Just jumping in here with a quick question, why do you need semi-autos or assault rifles? What need is there for them?
User avatar #407 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
A semi-auto is simply a gun that shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger as opposed to a bolt-action with which you have to pull a lever back to empty the chamber after every shot. I'm not an expert marksman, so it's not very likely I'm going to hit someone with one shot, especially if I'm in a panic or my life is in danger, so I'd like to be able to get 3-5 shots off in rapid succession. A full-auto fires at a fixed rate repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down, which I don't think is necessary for a civilian to own, but if you're ex-military and have a permit you have the right to own one.
User avatar #425 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, you may need a few shots at someone who is attacking you (i'm completely ignoring all the bits about if you should have guns in the first place, I can't be bothered with all of that bit now, we'll just focus on having them) but if someone is attacking you, surely just something like a pistol would be good enough, I can't really think of a situation where you're defending yourself unprepared and need for example, a semi auto rifle to take out someone at range, if they're far enough away for you to take them out with something that big its probably not that much self defense.

I'm glad you agree its silly for a civilian to have an auto, but even if you're an ex-military, again, why would you need one. If anything, you'd be better than most with a small pistol or something as you'd have been trained to use it properly. You wouldn't need an assault rifle.
User avatar #448 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Sorry for adding another comment, but I have a .38 special for instance. It's extremely powerful, but once you get to a certain range it's woefully inaccurate because it only has a 2-inch barrell. Now my handgun of choice would be a Colt M1911, but it costs about $3000. An AR-15 however only costs $500 and has more stopping power. While the extra power may not be necessary, it can be of use.
User avatar #454 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
No problem. So what ranges are we talking about here, somewhere around 30ft or what?
User avatar #436 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Sometimes it's just good to be prepared. Pistols are sufficient to stop someone at close range yes, but there is such thing as a long range threat. Even if they're just running at you through your back yard, would you rather wait for them to get in range of pistol use or take them out as soon as possible. AR's are handy, it's as simple as that, if you know how to use one without hurting those around you who aren't trying to hurt you, why shouldn't you have one? It's a self-defense mechanism.
User avatar #449 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Well if they're in your garden running at you, why not run away/go inside and lock them out, or at least delay them. If they have to stop to smash through a door, you've got an easy target with a pistol.

The point is you don't need one. I can't really think of a reasonable situation where a few shots wouldn't stop whatever was happening. Its unlikely you're going to be zerged by 10 robbers trying to get at you when you're near your assault rifle and you have to gun them down one after another.

Even if there was a few, if you kill one of them the others are likely to stop for a second and probably run away. (unless you're being hunted by professionals or something, in which case you'd probably have a fuck load of guns no matter if they were against the law or not. You know, I think i'm getting a bit carried away with these scenarios now. Oh well, always good to add a bit of humor)
User avatar #465 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
It's a matter of protecting your castle. You shouldn't be forced to let someone bust into your house so you can get a closer shot. It's also much easier to make an accurate shot with a rifle as opposed to a pistol because you have a rifle pressed up against your shoulder. And in response to your other comment, the .38 starts to lose accuracy around 25 feet. I'm not sure about the 1911, going on experience all I know is I've had no problems with it at about 100 feet. But an AR15 is accurate at 1500 feet. Granted I wouldn't ever be shooting someone at that range but Say they're 200 feet away. My .38 isn't going to hit them, and I can't afford a reliable handgun that's accuracy is any better. I can afford an AR. And multiple burglars isn't an unheard-of scenario, say there are 5 of them, my revolver holds 5 rounds, the AR can hold up to 31 including the one in the chamber. I'm not going to hit every shot regardless of which one I'm using, so if I shoot one and the rest don't run, I'm screwed with the .38. But if I shot one with the AR and they kept coming I'd be able to get enough shots off to finish them all off.
User avatar #509 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, you may not be able to kill them all, but if theres multiple people and lets say you know how to use your gun, you've bought it and practiced with it, so you kill say 2 or 3 of them. If the rest keep coming, lets face it, you probably don't have a chance, if they're so determined to get into your house they ignore there comrades dying or at least being seriously injured, they're not there to just rob you, they're probably a lot more serious and in all likelihood, professional, so you probably don't have much of a chance even with an assault rifle.

I though it'd probably be somewhere around that range. And if someone is 200 feet away, can you really class that as self defense unless they're shooting at you, how much damage can someone that far away really do unless they're trying to kill you?
And 25 feet is still a reasonable distance, you're going to be able to get a couple of shots at them before they're close enough to really do anything to you, so if they're still coming at you after you've been pointing a gun at them, probably fired a warning shot and probably hit them somewhere when they're closer, that person is again, probably coming at you for a reason, not just say trying to rob you.

So is that really self defense? Shooting someone who is either too far to hurt you (shooting them with a rifle) or if they're specifically trying to get you, you've probably done something to make them try and get you specifically, thats not self defense, its starting a fight. Its kind of like throwing a rock at someone, then punching them when they run at you and saying it was self defense.

I know there are other scenarios where this is probably not the case, but the majority are probably like this
User avatar #529 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Yes, the majority of cases are npt actually self-defense, but as you said, he could be shooting at you from 200 feet away, too, in which case, it is self-defense. My only point is, there are rare cases in which an assault rifle is necessary. I like to say I'm not afraid of people who know how to use rifles, I'm afraid of people who don't. I do, so I should be able to have one. I see your point and it's valid, but I'd like to be as well-prepared for anything as I can be. That's it. I don't need a machine gun, I don't even need an assault rifle, but I'd like to have one. I'm well-equipped to use one, I'm a good shot, and seeing as I'm not a criminal or legally insane, it's my constitutional right to own one. So I believe I should be allowed to own one. If you disagree, fine, that's your opinion and I respect it, mine is just different. Also seeing as I don't know you or what your upbringing was, I can't know where you're coming from with yours, but I come from a long line of veterans and men who have owned guns their whole lives. I was raised by a man who had guns, I've been learning how to shoot since I was four, I come from a gun-loving family, that's probably why I like guns.
User avatar #589 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
A direct quote from you here:
"I'm well-equipped to use one, I'm a good shot, and seeing as I'm not a criminal or legally insane"
I'm not saying you shouldn't have a gun, hell, even though I most of the time its probably not needed, I agree you should be able to have a rifle, but as you said in the quote above, you are well suited to have a gun, so why not impose some checks on those who want a gun.

Just basic ones, i.e. mental health, reason for having one, i.e. a pistol is well suited for defense, but is a high powered hunting rifle, no not really, so why would you need one unless you were going to go hunting? You wouldn't really, so as I said, maybe just some restrictions on guns, including safety and training.

I'll give you some background on me, I live in England, and we have fairly strict gun laws, but my Dad has a shotgun license and used to do some shooting, my Girlfriend regularly goes game shooting and my Uncle has a shoot for game including birds, deer and also does pest control, like rats etc, so i'm used to guns.

And even though there are a surprising amount of guns in Britain (off the top of my head I can think of at least 20 people I know who have guns) we have very, very little gun crime, maybe one case in the news a year.

Why? Because we have gun regulations and control. Not everyone can get a gun, you have to go through a fair bit to get one.

I'm not saying America should have the same regulations, but all the sensible, average Americans who have legitimate reasons for wanting guns would have nothing to fear from stricter regulations, the only people who would worry about it would be people who would be denied a gun under stricter regulations, who to be honest are probably the people you don't want to have the guns in the first place.

As an American (I assume) you probably have a better view on this, what is your opinion on gun control/regulation?
User avatar #792 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I absolutely agree, there are regulations in place that you mentioned, mentally unstable people can't legally purchase guns nor can anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony. As far as ability to use one goes we have limitations to a certain extent. For instance, to get a hunting license you have to take classes and training and tests before you get one. Now when it comes to purchasing semi-automatic guns there are no regulations beyond the ones I just listed. I think there should be but our president doesn't seem to realize there are alternatives to banning weapons completely.
#813 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Now you see, thats a sensible answer. I'm actually seriously glad i've finally got a sensible response from an internet post. Whats wrong with more gun control? Nothing. So why not introduce it?

And whilst we may disagree on specifics (e.g. what guns should have what checks, how easy it should be to have specific guns etc) i'm happy we both agree that there is definitely ways to handle this, and it could be done a lot better than it is.

Than you for a good discussion, i'm now going to thumb a load of your comments. Have a funny gif of a dog
User avatar #824 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, I am too. Later.
#368 - xheavymetalx (02/22/2013) [-]
First of all, he wouldn't be able to successfully make that kind of reform without the support of congress. Who the PEOPLE elect. Therefore, it's fair.

Also, ever think that it may just be for the common good? I mean, look at this:
http://www.slate. com/articles/newsandpolitics/crime/2012/12/gundeathtallyeveryamericangun deathsincenewtownsandyhook_shooting.html
User avatar #374 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
People elected Obama as well, the fact of the matter is the majority of the country can vote, regardless of how dumb they are and how little they know about what they're voting for. So no, it's not "fair" just because other people who were voted for, like Obama, get a say. No I don't think it's for the best just because one guy went crazy and shot a bunch of children. Drugs are illegal, but people who want to sell and use drugs even though it's illegal still get them. I choose not to break the law, so I don't have any drugs. The same can be assumed for guns. If the law says we can't have them, I won't have any because I am a law-abiding citizen. However, gang bangers and whoever else may want to commit a murder will be able to get them ILLEGALLY. The only difference is that now that it's illegal, if they break into my house and have their illegal guns, I no longer have any way to protect myself. On a side note I love how everyone refers to guns as deadly weapons but nothing else. Tell me, people are stabbed every day, should we also regulate knife laws and ban knives that resemble machetes or bayonets? Or how about blunt instruments?
#451 - xheavymetalx (02/22/2013) [-]
Again, no one said Obama was going to get officials to physically take away your weapons. You don't need advanced weaponry to defend your house, nor should gun distributors keep no record of their inventory, nor should just ANYONE be able to get guns at a local store. Sure, law abiding citizens should have guns. But even the constitution says "well regulated". There has to be a system to make sure that the people who do own guns are the ones that won't kill innocent people with them.
User avatar #458 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
And all of that I agree with, yes there should be records, yes there should be regulations, but he shouldn't be able to completely ban assault rifles which is what he's trying to do.
User avatar #394 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
You're a lot less likely to kill somebody from across the room with a knife. If you're so incredibly paranoid that somebody is going to break into your house and try to kill you then move to another country, because unless you sleep with your gun at night it wont likely stop somebody who breaks into your house.
User avatar #400 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
It's still a deadly weapon, unless you're a good shot you aren't likely to kill someone with a gun either. And there's a difference between paranoia and realization of a real threat.
User avatar #410 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
That's not exactly realization of a threat, you just make it sound like you're paranoid about it. It's only a real threat if something like that keeps happening around where you live, THEN I can understand the need for keeping a weapon nearby.
User avatar #412 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I live in the bad part of St. Louis, Missouri. It happens repeatedly in my neighborhood and neighborhoods surrounding my house. So yes, maybe I am paranoid, but it's a healthy paranoia.
User avatar #418 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
Paranoia is never healthy...but I can see having a weapon at hand if you live in a bad area.
User avatar #424 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Exactly, so you see my point. To some people they're necessary, and I'm one of them. I was raised learning how to use them and now I fear that I may need to use them, therefor I'd like to have them at hand.
User avatar #441 - zexionn (02/22/2013) [-]
I really don't care if somebody wants to own a gun, my only pet peeve is people who think they need to own like an automatic assault rifle or a mini gun or something crazy like that.
User avatar #447 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I understand that completely, no one needs a machine gun or an SMG or whatever kind of automatic gun they may think is absolutely necessary. Now say you're ex-military, you're trained to use an automatic assault rifle, do you NEED one? No. Should you be ALLOWED to own one? Why not? But an ex-marine isn't an ordinary civilian. He's a trained weapon himself. So it seems to me that you and I have similar views on this issue.
#149 - Right before Bush left office, unemployment rates skyrocketed.… 02/20/2013 on Best Layoff +1
#129 - Picture 02/20/2013 on Best Layoff 0
#128 - More like "biggest asshole ever". He fires …  [+] (4 new replies) 02/20/2013 on Best Layoff +8
User avatar #141 - fuckya (02/20/2013) [-]
I feel like that's a type of discrimination and therefor firing an employee for no other reason due to opposing views on politics. And wouldn't that warrant a lawsuit?
User avatar #170 - dovahben (02/20/2013) [-]
Everything today can be a lawsuit.
User avatar #175 - fuckya (02/21/2013) [-]
True, but I feel like that's a justified thing that's protected under laws and not just, "I'm offended" lawsuits.
User avatar #131 - pinesol (02/20/2013) [-]
hurr durr I disagree and will thumb you down hurr durr
#117 - Better than it was under Bush.  [+] (2 new replies) 02/20/2013 on Best Layoff +1
User avatar #144 - ohthreeeleven (02/20/2013) [-]
Oh really? Care to tell us how so?

Please do.
#149 - xheavymetalx (02/20/2013) [-]
Right before Bush left office, unemployment rates skyrocketed.

After only a few months of Obama's presidency, it stopped. It even dropped since then, though very slightly.

Just one example.
#225 - That's not called getting friendzoned... that's called being p…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/15/2013 on 2013 Friendzone Champion.... +2
#228 - simplygabriele (02/15/2013) [-]
Yup. As if throwing expensive stuff at people will make them love you.
#376 - Dude, no one said that the heart from the donor MADE him do an… 02/13/2013 on More surprising facts! +1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)