No explanation needed
"But sir, you can't have a rocket launcher, a Gatling gun, and a gun that eats the dreams of children-- *Cocks rocket launcher like a shotgun* "Ya wanna say that again, boy?"
@Apollo Gauntlet, hehe... "Cocks" hehe
@Narutolover115, Hehe... "Children" hehe
@Apollo Gauntlet, Hehe... "say" hehe
@Apollo Gauntlet, *wrenchs
Guns don't kill people
@IQhunter, No no no, last time I checked guns killed people too.
@IQhunter, I'm getting gang banged by down votes wtf
that comments going well for you O_o
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, noooooo people kill people some just use guns to do it
@kc9pop, I knew someone was gonna say that
@IQhunter, that's a song
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, I was hoping for the next line of the song?
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, If you want to get technical, it's the lead projectile that does damage.
@America Ball, okay fine. Guns don't kill people. People and bullets kill people
@IQhunter, only Suge Knight. it's always Suge Knight
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, You just ordered a down vote nuke with that comment.
@CriTiKa1, I know but why? I think people are doing it as a joke now
@IQhunter, its true they even say so in their songs and videos. It must be true
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, bullets kill people
@IQhunter, *black people
@Bar of broken heroes, sorry that was racist
@Bar of broken heroes, no, you just forgot to include the other colors as well. Purple people, green people, white people, yellow people, etc.
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, you earned it
@FunnyPics HOONIGAN, dude, its cuz ya tried to bring politics into funny pics, thats bad, bad boy, no
@DEATHSTROKE2243, so confused.
Guns don't kill people, NFL players do
This. Picture. Is. Great. I have no words. It is my time to shine.
@2ndAmendment, the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" so to liberals that means more gun laws.
@CrazyRightWinger, I agree, but to express my philosophy I will use a Cyanide and Happiness quote: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people! People like me! People with guns!"
@Lt Dubble Bubble, but cars and other means are far more prominent.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, actually, the second amendment clearly states something about a well regulated militia, and until 2006, that's the way it was interpreted.
@derp day, I didn't say that in a way to disapprove of the the 2nd. I said it for the opposite, I'm a supporter. I just thought it was funny.
You know, if you take away guns, then only the good guys have guns. If someone wants to kill somebody, they don't care if it breaks a law. Weed is illegal in many states. But how many of you know someone who can get it? Imagine that's a criminal life. Except for weed, it's untraceable guns. Since when did the bad guy care if he was breaking a law? If he really wants a gun, he's going to get one. If he can't get a gun, whats stopping him from making a bomb? The UK banned guns, but the death rate with hammers and blunt objects rose up almost 300%
So here's the question. Would you rather everyone have a weapon? Or only the bad guy?
@Fun Facts 101, then only the bad guys have guns* oops
@Fun Facts 101, the difference between killing someone with a blunt object and a gun, is that with a blunt object it's almost always intentional. But accidental gun deaths are heard about almost every week on the news in the US.
@Archmage Araketh, do you know how many accidental deaths total there are? I mean lots of people choke to death every year. But does that mean we should all drink through a straw?
People will hurt themselves regardless of the situation. Many of them don't take common gun safety courses. Does that mean the rest of the population should suffer from it?
That's like saying we should all walk everywhere, because the death rate with car accidents is about 250000-300000 deaths a year. (I can assume most unintentional)
And the reason for those deaths (around 85%) are from drunk driving or texting. But does that make it the cars fault for crashing?
@Fun Facts 101, you're being dishonest when you give those things as examples, as guns' only purpose is as a killing tool. We can live without guns easily, like in the majority of Europe.
@Archmage Araketh, Guns are for self defense and to deter a corrupt government. You're the dishonest one for claiming that they're only for killing.
@ archiethesailor, how exactly, other than the intent to do harm, are you supposed to use them then? It doesn't matter if it's in self defence or not, they're still designed as a weapon and weapons lead only to violence. Most of the time the violence is unintentional and unnecessary this doesn't happen in places without such liberal distribution of arms.
@Fun Facts 101, I agree. The murderer will get any weapon it needs to do the job.
@Archmage Araketh, IM SURE many more people die of accidental car crashes, and try aren't being banned.
@cheese doodle, I've addressed that point. Cars aren't designed as weapons and are actually useful, we can live without guns.
@Archmage Araketh, Have you never heard of marksmanship as a sport? Firearms are fun in a controlled environment, and are the greatest possible means of self defense. I personally have many guns in my home, yet there has been absolutely no acts of violence to date in my home or involving me or my family, so I know "weapons lead only to violence" is merely a blanket statement meant to scare people into mistrusting guns. Finally, the chance of an accidental discharge may be greater, but I'll take that chance in exchange for the opportunity to keep my head from being bashed in. Besides, if you use your head and follow all safety rules of firearms, there really isn't a good chance of an accidental discharge.
@Archmage Araketh, Private gun ownership is actually hugely important in America. When that amendment was added, the founding fathers were not thinking that guns would provide good defense against home invasions, they believed that if there ever came a time where America was attacked on US soil (either by foreign invaders or the government turning on the people) the guns would allow people not just to defend themselves, but defend the entire nation. If we weren't allowed to own guns, we no longer have that barrier.
@The Grammar KGB, you would have that barrier, it's called the military, which your government has poured billions into.
@Archmage Araketh, Yes we have that barrier, but we as a people also need protection against that barrier. History has shown us that at any moment, some dictator could rise to power, take control of the army, police force, everything, and use it against his own people. Without private gun ownership, we'd have no way of defending ourselves not just against foreign threats, but against our own government. Now that isn't the most likely scenario today, but down the road, with the way things are going, who knows. It's happened plenty of times in the past, so I'd like to have my guns if it should ever happen to us.
@The Grammar KGB, if you really decided to fight against the government, then you would be pretty screwed regardless. You'd be bringing guns to a tank and drone fight. The government would also be much more organised and resourceful than a group of rebels. It only worked the first time because both sides used muskets and cannons, as well as the British needing to import recourses from it's other colonies. Also, if you feel that you need to be protected from your own government, then you must either be pretty paranoid or think your government is so flawed that you need to be prepared for civil war.
@Archmage Araketh, Unfortunately yes, I have very little trust for my government as it stands. It has resorted me (and many others) to start thinking about these kinds of things like having guns to defend ourselves should anything go wrong (God forbid). I think a lot more people should be worrying about this than they are. But they'd rather focus on celebrity sleez and crap like that. So yes I come off as a gun-nut, but that should tell you how screwed up our government is if we're starting to think about how we could defend ourselves against it
I tried this with the cops. Turns out it doesn't work so well. Brb, our 1 hour in the yard starts now.
ah, The Right to Dank Memes
*gets shot *
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, I DO
If you join a state militia, fine by me *runs back to Europe*
*repeatedly telling myself not to post a comment about politics* AAAAAHHHHHHHHH
Wow, people are very attached to their guns. But I understand. Can't take my nerf guns away for NUTHIN!!!!
I am aware that revolutions are lost. And I'm not saying everyone would take part. I just personally think our government has to much too lose. The government has shutdowns when they dont get their way, why can't we the people have our own shut down where we stop abiding by the governments rediculous rules and taxes?
@2ndAmendment, I think it is the problem of political parties. I am not saying they are bad or good, but really some politicians care more about party loyalty then the good of the their country, and if it weren't for their influence the government wouldnt be neck to neck in a political rumble. On the other hand they unify the people and assist them in understanding their opinion on the issue. On the otherhand, they influence the media heavily and it is difficult to find the straight facts instead of thay news channel's opinions on the facts. On the otherhand they achieve and resolve hundreds of issues from what the majority of the people decide. Frankly, I am beat!
Said every felon everywhere
@StereotypicalAnomaly, seriously? my comment wasn't a slam on felons. everyone knows a felon can't license a gun. smh
@StereotypicalAnomaly, *gets downvoted for not liking felons*
@Mr McFun, it's not mcfunny... some of my best friends are felons *locks doors and windows and pulls all the shades down in the house to hide from angry felons
"I didn't kill him. I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."
I live in Canada and honestly it's a long running joke on how bad you guys are with guns. Lots of people will say "but not everyone I'm good with them" but if you allow a depressed angry man walk into Walmart and buy a full auto and shoot up a school you have just as many problems. What is sooo wrong that you would have to have a background check and your mental state analyzed before owning a gun? America is trying to be a leader of peace, yet you refuse to take a a simple step to becoming more peaceful.
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, it's because a country can have freedom or security. Just like a castle, you'll be safe, but you won't be able to enjoy the freedom of roaming outside. In 1776, we chose freedom. And yes, even to depressed angry men to own guns. Yes, he will face justice for his crimes, and yes people like him are evil. But those schools, and every victim is the sad, unfortunate, cruel price we pay for our freedom. This is why we must never, ever have our rights taken for granted.
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, Full autos are highly illegal in the US. Not really surprising that no one from outside the US knows this.
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, yeah and you also do have to go through a background check to get a gun license.
@angrynarwhals, why not both? Those who are mentally unstable can't have a gun and those who are can own guns. It doesn't have to be freedom or captivity.
@Captain Swordsman, I was being sarcastic I'm aware full autos are illegal
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, sarcasm isn't an excuse for your premise to be ridiculous. If you know that full autos ate illegal in the US, then saying something about walking into WalMart and buying one makes you look stupid. How am I supposed to know you were being sarcastic and weren't just ranting about things you didn't understand about the US like 99% of people do.
@Captain Swordsman, you don't sorry for being outlandish I was just trying to stress the point I guess.
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, I have bought 5 guns in 4 years. I had to wait 5 months for my license to get approved due to the systems background checks. And still, everytime I buy a gun, I have to stand there and wait in the shop for an hour while they contact the feds and do a full check on me. I almost wasnt allowed to by my mosin nagant because it had a bayonet on it. But in the end I was able to. You can't comment on things you have no idea about. Background checks are mandatory in many states. But in the states that don't mandate them, crime isn't any higher than the other states. We Americans take pride as one of the few countries that allow gun ownership. It is in our blood. That is how our country came to be. A bunch of englishmen that were tired of the kings rules and taxes, so they rebelled. We need another revolution in this day and age, against our own privacy invading government. (The 2nd amendment was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government.)
@2ndAmendment, if you try too rebel, you'll almost definitely fail. You'd be bringing guns to a drone/tank fight.
@Archmage Araketh, *to
@Archmage Araketh, think about it. If every person decided to rebel against the government, they wouldnt be making any money. Our government is corrupt with money. If everyone grew a set, then we would. Be able to firce the government to fix itself.
@2ndAmendment, I highly doubt that an unorganised militia could defeat the government with the largest and most advanced military in the world, including jets, destroyers, drones and tanks. The only reason the first revolution was a success was because everyone was on a relatively even playing field, only using muskets and canons. But if shjt hit the fan now, the U.S. Government would kick the public's arse.
@Archmage Araketh, you dont understand though. If they government kicked our asses and killed us all, they would have no money. They would have to surrender or kill their entire country.
@2ndAmendment, I'm not saying they'd kill everyone in the revolution, and I also doubt that the entire country would be part of this hypothetical revolution. All I'm saying is that in a fight, the government would win and subdue the other side. You are aware that governments have won revolutions in the past, right?
@Archmage Araketh, such as the whole civil war thing you had going.
@2ndAmendment, I just said that myself! We should have buddy rings
@Archmage Araketh, you're assuming that the military would fight for the government, against their own families/friends?!?!? If a revolution was to start against government intrusion, a good portion of the military would be on the side of the Revolution.
@Archmage Araketh, drones can be shot down by skilled marksman, planes run out of fuel if you grab the storage areas, destroyers are useless against infantry unless they use missiles against hard targets, which would be pointless and just make the rebels angrier. And last I checked if you pour fuel onto an engine of any kind and light it, it will cease to work and might explode. And since the Abrams has electronic redundancy systems it would crash the computers and it is much harder to use one(if at all) when the power and computers go out.
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, referring someone to a mental health test can be grounds for a discrimination, and defamation of character lawsuit. Thank the ACLU for that "great" precedent.
@Archmage Araketh, the small drones, not the reaper and global hawk
@talmet, the civil war was famous for brother fighting brother and father fighting son, so it's not that unlikely.
@angrydwarf, that's all true, however I don't think that a rag-tag army of civilians could coordinate that well against a highly trained army with advanced weaponry and vehicles.
@Archmage Araketh, that's what the British though about the colonials. Technology might be newer, but the idea is the same
@angrydwarf, I know how to shoot down a helicopter using an EMP made from a microwave. The people can win!
@Captain Swordsman, Not highly illegal, just a really expensive and really tedious process to acquire the license.
@That Psycho Fvcker, okay, true you can get a special license through a very long process, buy owning one without this license IS highly illegal.
@angrydwarf, like I said, the revolution was fought on a relatively even playing field. However, today the government has a massive technological and material advantage. Also, one of the reasons the government lost the first time was because of the inability to get supplies across the water quick enough, however now the government would have the upper hand when stocking supplies.
@angrydwarf, I'm not getting into the argument, I'm just saying that the French was an extreme help during the revolution and many historians believe that if it wasn't for them than the colonies would have lost.
@rabid aviator, well we would have a great number of countries to help us, but who in their right mind would assist the government that was attacking its own people?
@angrydwarf, now we do but then not so much and again I'm not going to get into the argument but I know during the revolutionary war there were people who sided with britten so really it's not too farfetched. Just saying I really don't want to get into it
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, But the problem lies in thr government. What of the government became so tyrannical we needed to use force to stop it, but if the government knows everyone who has a gun or any weapon they will get rid of those guys before they cause a problem. I agree mental and criminal background checks are in order, but everything in moderation. Not too much and not too little gun control. Furthermore, a murder will find anything it needs to do the job, gun or no gun, and though guns make the huge difference, and understanding the gravity and ignorance of this next sentence but: people are entitled to a good amount of privacy from themselves and the government.
@LVL9000SuperSwagyain, umm, full autos are illegal. at least they were last time I checked.
@Archmage Araketh, I hope you know most of the U.S. military supports gun rights. I would be willing to bet they wouldn't be fighting for the government if it gets that bad.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, I agree that if a murderer wanted to kill someone, they'd find a way without a gun. But guns sure do make killing a large group of people a LOT easier than with a blunt or sharp object. As well as the added risk of killing/shooting somebody accidentally or even yourself if you're feeling depressed enough.
@cheese doodle, I never said this hypothetical revolution was about gun rights, did I? All I said was that the public owning guns doesn't automatically secure them victory.
@Archmage Araketh, you should look up the politics of people in the military....if a revolution started to stop government overreach (i.e. Gun control laws), the vast majority of the military would be politically motivated to join the revolution.
@Archmage Araketh, a blunt or sharp object...sure. But bombs are pretty easy to make. In fact the largest and worst school "shooting" didn't use any guns, the guy planted a series of bombs in the basement of the school and killed 45 people, and wounded another 50 or so. It was back in the 1920s.
To the commies that down voted, feel free to leave the country.
This is beautiful. I want this tattooed on my whole back
Yeah because applying 300 year old ideals to modern society is really gonna help. *prepares for buttrage of pro gun people*
The 1791 says it all really