Creepy Condescending Wonka

Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | MORE GUN CONTROL MEASURES MR. PRESIDENT ? TRY IT IN CHICAGO 1ST,.. LET US KNOW HOW IT WORKS | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
8,637 views, 85 upvotes, Made by Invicta103 26 months ago memescreepy condescending wonka
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
[deleted]
15 ups, 3 replies
10 Guy Meme | WHAT IF MURDER WAS ILLEGAL? THEN, NO ONE WOULD KILL ANYONE, RIGHT? | image tagged in memes,10 guy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups, 2 replies
Futurama Fry Meme | SINCE GUN LAWS WORK.. WE SHOULD OUTLAW ARSON AND LOOTING IN BALTIMORE TOO. | image tagged in memes,futurama fry | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
Or make gun laws that actually have consequences to those that supply criminals with guns. Like arson laws. They may not stop all arsonists but at least the ones that get caught have penalties to face.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
But did the arson laws "prevent" the arson? What gun law is not on the books in chicago that can be added that will prevent gun violence? I'm all for BGs etc.. but the social rebellious attitudes still exist with the thugs that get the guns. All the laws are directed at honest gun owners like you and i.. when will the issues that address thugs get addressed?
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
Consistent gun laws across the country will help prevent needless deaths by guns and criminals having guns. Plain and simple. As I said...Chicago is an island surrounded by loose gun laws. Do you blame the girl for getting **ped by the circle of rapists around her too? The laws I think should be enacted effect all gun buyers ...people like you and me ....and people that are not as nice. They buy guns and sell them or lose them or....whatever. I'm fine with more laws. I'm waiting 30-60 days for a new pistol permit. If suddenly I had to do more things like pay an extra 10 bucks and wait an extra 10 days or register it or insure it or whatever because it would decrease crime...great. I'm all for it.
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
Bro... LA is surrounded by strict gun laws... So is Baltimore, DC, etc etc. So that really don't factor in. We agree on cutting gun violence.. but all laws will effect or inconvenience legal buyers and owners. Nothing addresses the lawless anti authority attitudes that are responsible. It's a ploy to say we need gun laws for "mass killings" when they are the small fraction of all gun violence. Almost 3000 in the community organizers home city alone. . Just this year. Add in the other thug laden cities and mass killings look like a crumb on a cake.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
gangs | IN COMPTON WE ALL OBEY THE GUN LAWS HOLMES! | image tagged in gangs | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
This what will happen when citizens are stripped of their rights! Good one bro!
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
Bro gun laws need to be consistent across all states
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
By the way when you say
"Nothing addresses the lawless anti authority attitudes that are responsible."

You mean all the legal gun buyers that bleed guns into other criminal hands? Because I'm with you. And my laws would address them.
reply
7 ups
Nope. . Don't mean them. . Not that they're innocent.

If I am a low life.. and I offer you a stolen gun.. or gun you should not have.. would you take it to use in a crime? Of course not. Why not? So why do the street thugs accept the guns? Thug Attitude ? Gives then power? Assist in criminal activity?

Who and how and when will that be addressed? Laws are for good people.. bad people don't care bro.. and all these race baiting social justice ass clowns do nothing about it.. but get richer. What has Al Sharpton done to fix that attitude?
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Your logic suggests every law should be abolished because it hasn't eradicated the relevant crime. You don't seem to understand that laws can curb crime and deter and prevent.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
So what would you do exactly if you were sitting in your home and an armed intruder broke in and threatened you? Ask him to please stop? Sit in the corner and cry until they left and hope they don't kill you? Maybe scream real loud?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Biden had the answer.. walk out on the porch and just rack a round in that Remington 870 and that's gonna scare them off. Lmao! Maybe I should sell recordings of a racking 12 gage to sr. Citizens and other constantly victimized citizens. Peeps this ignorant to trust calling 911 to prevent a crime?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Or just have a **pe victim pee themselves and that should just scare the daylights out of their attackers and they'll be left alone.
reply
4 ups
Pathetic logic.. leading the nation.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
So now you think I don't own a gun or have no security or a brain? Your reply has no understanding of my statement. Where and why do you make these extreme conclusions.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
I didn't say you didn't own a gun or that you are dumb. I was giving a "what if" scenario. If you take away the ability for responsible citizens to protect themselves by having the fire power, you are limiting their chances to fight back against anyone who feels the need to invade their home, etc. Gun laws are not constitutional and more restrictions is just a power grab by a tyrannical government.
reply
1 up, 9 replies
No gun laws are constitutional?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Correct. None of the gun laws are constitutional.

And you're right, the 2nd amendment says Arms which is short for armament(military grade weapons and equipment). And the founding fathers lived in a time of cannons and explosives capable of "undermining" a castle wall. So if a citizen could afford a nuke and its delivery system it would be constitutional. Thing is, it would be out of reach for 99% of the world's individuals. Let alone the US's.

Kids have rights, but there are common sense clauses in the constitution that would cover that and legislation for it would be redundant and unconstitutional

And no, the Constitution is written in plain English and isn't subjective at all.

If you're not okay with citizens owning Armament, leave.

And no, felons not being able to own arms is unconstitutional as well. The 2nd amendment is God given, not granted by any government to be able to take away.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the beef is with laws, so...

"I'll concede knowledge of firearms as a prime indicator of intelligence" Said the guy who doesn't know anything about guns. You have a lack of knowledge with guns, so you perceive a lack of intelligence with those who own them? lol Okay...

You kind of go off on tangents later on, but murder is illegal because of morality. Duh.

It's cool that you don't like/appreciate the American God given rights like the 2nd Amendment. I would suggest migration to a country that doesn't have that freedom instead of trying to violate the rights of more intelligent Americans. :{
1 up
Is the Constitution is not subjective, why do we have a Supreme Court? If you're claiming to get your rights from a fictional deity, those rights are tenuous indeed. I know why murder is illegal and believe it should be. I also know murder laws "don't work" in the same way gun laws don't. That is a poor argument not to have those laws. However one interprets the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Apparently our conversation has reached its limits on this meme, so have to answer from here.

As far as felons go, they forfeit their constitutional rights when they committed a violent crime, so it should not apply to them.

As for citizens owning fully automatic weapons, I believe we have that right as stated in the 2nd amendment. It was written to enable the people to be able to fight back against a rogue government. It's very specific in that regards. Some liberal argue that the 2nd amendment was meant for muskets, but that is wrong. Is the government limited to muskets? No, they are not. We are allowed to fight back with equal fire power, as is stated in the constitution.
1 up
Laws prohibiting felons or children from having guns are still gun laws, so you concede some gun laws are constitutional. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about fighting a rogue government. Treason, however, was mentioned specifically. I don't go with the musket idea, but those who argue the meaning of the Constitution cannot change should, in the interest of consistency, be musket people. The Framers wanted a civilian army, not a professional one: that was the motivation behind the 2nd Amendment. They wanted these civilian citizens to have access to weapons (keep) and to be able to use them when called upon (bear). Neither hunting nor personal protection were part of their motivation. Wouldn't we need nukes to meet your "equal firepower" criteria?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"You said it was in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a stand alone document drafted to declare our independence from England. It has no legal standing otherwise. Most of the Founders believed in a god, but they also took care to protect our nation from the religious strife caused by religious/government entanglements. Iran is nice if it's a theocracy you crave."

The DoI IS apart of the Constitution. Duh. It's always been considered apart of the Constitution as well.

It's not a law, but the philosophy of America. And our laws come from that philosophy. So it might as well be viewed as law.

And the First amendment gives us the right to choose what God we believe in, but doesn't protect atheism since it's not a religion but the lack thereof.

You seem to think America is supposed to be separate from God when it's founded on belief in It.

Again, China has a government that has an official atheist stance. Go there if you want freedom from America's belief in God. :{
2 ups
I'm no longer interested in this discussion.
reply
4 ups
"I'm no longer interested in this discussion."

Well, I hope for your sake, if you're a citizen of the US, that you exercise your God given rights and don't allow men to tell you what you can do with those rights. :{
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The government does not have the right to restrict any gun laws (or making gun laws as it is.)
1 up
Why just guns? The Constitution says "arms." Yet, I'm restricted from buying nuclear warheads. What gives??? So, a law prohibiting 2 year olds from operating Uzis would be unconstitutional?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
A child does not have rights the way adults do. A two year old firing off an uzie isn't covered by the constitution and would just be a stupid thing to allow happen. And we don't need nuclear warheads as a citizen, but a fully automatic is a completely different story.
2 ups
The Constitution has no "need" provision, plus that is quite subjective. You might not want to make that your argument. I do not think a citizen needs an automatic weapon, nor any gun for that matter. Prohibiting felons from owning guns is a "gun law." Is that one okay? Some states require melting point and drop/accidental misfire testing to protect you from unsafe weapons.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Is the Constitution is not subjective, why do we have a Supreme Court? If you're claiming to get your rights from a fictional deity, those rights are tenuous indeed. I know why murder is illegal and believe it should be. I also know murder laws "don't work" in the same way gun laws don't. That is a poor argument not to have those laws. However one interprets the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited."

We have a supreme court to handle cases about the constitution yes, but not to restrict the 2nd amendment though. You must think that's all they do.

"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government." This doesn't mean that they can infringe the 2nd amendment.

If you think God is fictional that's on YOUR soul, not anyone else. But the US is founded on the belief in God. The rights in the Constitution are also stated to be given to the citizens by God. If you don't like that, leave.

How are the rights weaker for being from God? They would be indestructible if they're form God but alterable if by men. Are you simple minded?

What do you mean by "I also know murder laws "don't work" in the same way gun laws don't. That is a poor argument not to have those laws."? I'm not following what you are referring to in MY response to you.

And your last bit of "However one interprets the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited." is absolutely incorrect.

The 2nd amendment is an unbreakable law that grants citizens the right of self defense with any weapon. Meaning the government has no right to tell you what you can use for self defense.

Again, if you don't like the country's constitution, leave. Most other countries don't have the rights we have. Either that, or stop being an ingrate. :{
2 ups
"The rights in the Constitution are also stated to be given to the citizens by God. If you don't like that, leave." Could you elaborate? God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

We have the rule of law in this country. Your beliefs or "relationship" with a deity are irrelevant to the law. There is no debate to be had if you reject this notion.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
""The rights in the Constitution are also stated to be given to the citizens by God. If you don't like that, leave." Could you elaborate? God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

We have the rule of law in this country. Your beliefs or "relationship" with a deity are irrelevant to the law. There is no debate to be had if you reject this notion."

lol Actually, God the Creator is mentioned right in the beginning with the DoI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The rule of law is based on natural law though and is given by the Creator.

So, just because you choose to not believe in God, doesn't mean this country isn't founded on the belief in God, or that God doesn't exist.

You can say It's fictional all you want. You're foolish to give up your God given rights though.

And you can claim there is no debate if I believe in God or that the Founding Fathers did and stated that our rights are God given. It just shows how you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than contempt for God and theists.

If you don't like that America is founded on the belief in God, leave. I hear China's government is officially atheist. See how you like it there. :{
1 up
You said it was in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a stand alone document drafted to declare our independence from England. It has no legal standing otherwise. Most of the Founders believed in a god, but they also took care to protect our nation from the religious strife caused by religious/government entanglements. Iran is nice if it's a theocracy you crave.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
gun laws are supposed to remain within the confines of the constitution.. as are ALL laws.
1 up
Agreed. But no freedom is unlimited. I was pushing back against Spurs contention that any and all gun laws are de facto unconstitutional.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 3 replies
This seems like you are getting angry at Obama (I'm not him btw). Maybe you want to answer if you think there should be a limit on any type of armament? Tetsuo doesn't have the ability to answer that one.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Are you saying I can't share an opinion with someone else? As if all my opinions need to be original? The man in the video, Steven Crowder, shares my opinion because you explains what the 2nd amendment really means. If you don't agree with it, that's your prerogative.
[deleted]
1 up
So answer my question without leading me on a breadcrumb trail of links. Just simply answer it. Easy right? I guess not for you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't normally do this, but here's a link to a YouTube video that really goes into detail about the second amendment and what it really means. And before you say something like, "it leads me to a right-winged nut job channel," just watch the entire video. It has a link to the leftist side of the argument, as well; even though the leftist side is completely incorrect.

I would go into a lot more detail here, but it's kind of difficult to do so on this site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrcR3guGG0
[deleted]
1 up
Why can't anyone just answer my question though? Is it not possible to have your own opinion and not rely on someone else?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, I don't believe in any type of limit. You should be able to arm yourself to the fullest. If you have to match fire power with fire power then you should be allowed to do so, as the constitution states you have the right to do so. It was not limited to single shot powder pistols and muskets. Bearing arms covers all types of weapons, not just powder muskets.
[deleted]
2 ups
There you go, I'm proud of you for forming your own thoughts and presenting them without a page of back and forth bullshit :D
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I don't think you can apply the same gun law to the whole country. Fact is, in some states having a gun does actually keep you safe and deter criminal activity. Maybe gun control in major cities, like they did in the Wild West? In the city you can rely on the police a bit more, whereas out in the sticks you can't count on them. Que the police are slower in the city than they are in the sticks memes lol
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Good comment.. ! Even in the cities. . Cops usually arrive "after the fact". I'll trust my glock 21 on my nightstand before calling 911. ;)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Well to be fair, police can't show up before the crime has been committed :) I agree with you, but don't forget police are limited by their lack of clairvoyance :p
5 ups
Correct. . And why we need armed legal citizens having the right to self defense. Good one!
reply
2 ups
(regarding your comment below) I totally agree :)
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
I don't think you understand my statements, but I'm sure you think you do. You're arguing something with an imaginary enemy, or you mistakenly replied to me.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
If we eliminate all laws that don't stop illegal activities, we'd have none. Your beef is with laws, not gun laws.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Who said eliminate all laws?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Just the ones that don't work. You make the argument that gun laws don't work, I assume that being your reason for opposing them. No laws "work" under that criteria. Have I misunderstood your argument?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I oppose useless expanded laws. We have laws in place.. they don't prevent bad guys getting them. . Or they wouldn't have them
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
What makes a law useless? To me, closing the gun show loophole IS enforcing current law that has previously been unenforced. And I understand the civil liberty concerns with the no-fly list, but that's not a gun issue.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
what is the gun show loophole? I have heard this argument countless times. I have purchased at gunshows,... had to show my ccw to purchase... for everything aside from gun parts. Any lower receiver on a rifle requires ID and BG. Any fully assemble firearm the same way. So what is the loophole you reference?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
My understanding is that licensed dealers are required to do the required paperwork, but there are those who sell guns at shows that, because they sell fewer guns, they get a pass. But if there was no loophole, then "closing" it will have no effect, right?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I wonder if more crimes are committed with these so called "loop hole" guns or from stolen guns?
2 ups
So we're back to not having laws that don't work? Really??? I'm out.
1 up
can't a girl wonder? come back..lol
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I don't know what state you are referencing,.. please advise. In my state an FFL dealer has to follow all ATF and fed regs. . regardless of volume of sales. There is no loophole that you described. . I would like to see a reg from the state or the feds that decribe what you just stated. If that were true,.. then yes,.. close the hole. But it is not true,.. its a standard fib to fool the masses.
3 ups
Then, like I said, no harm done. At worst, Obama made a big to-do about nothing.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
These people don't know what a lower receiver is, they think that is something you would find in a bar in San Francisco.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
BWAAAA HA HA HA !! Like Diane Feinstein!! "If it's black,... it's an assault weapon"........... Morons!!!
2 ups
I'll concede knowledge of firearms as a prime indicator of intelligence...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Lmao.. now that's a 1st! A troll got PUNKED by tetsuowrath! You guys are suppose to be looking for trolls.. you got lots of views and comments though. ;) you are also grammarnazi. . Or just working together?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm not him and I don't know him. It's possible to have 2 intelligent people on the same site.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
LMAO! Look,.. to troll the site,.. be smart! I'm not smart,.. and I see through it. =)
If you don't know him ( you ),.. why would you even respond,.. or suggest that user is intelligent? I read that comment,.. it's not one to rate someones intelligence bro!! The problem with trolling,.. is you assume more than one identity. 2ndly,.. when I tagged you,.. out of no where the alt chimes in. You can't do that or peeps will catch on. **Wink wink! Now get a troll,.. I'm a waste of time. (hint hint)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
At least someone has it all figured out. This is why you're able to see through Obama's evil gun grab plot. :)
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
It is disconcerting after all these years to have such a convincing case put forward that we are in fact the same people. Nevertheless, I will continue to live in state of denial until I can refute such a claim.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Guns would. Haven't you heard...guns are evil and have a mind of their own.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
No, they don't kill people, but I've heard they can magically "save lives."
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
it all depends on whose hand it is in...just like drugs :)
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Guns do nothing by themselves, good or bad.
reply
1 up
BINGO! It is bad people on guns..i mean with guns :D
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
so it's a " bad people problem",... not a gun problem. Why not regulate the bad people then,... leave the laws in place as they are ,... and stop trying to regulate more guns and good citizens?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The fact that guns do nothing without human intervention, while true, does nothing to suggest guns shouldn't be regulated. It's a clever soundbite, but not an argument to me. We regulate all kinds of inanimate objects.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Reread my comment.. "leave the laws in place". What's clever about that? No one said no gun regulation should be in place.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Point taken. You didn't say there should be no gun regulation, but at least one person here has (tetsuoswrath). Granted, he's a nutter. But the argument is the same, whether existing laws or new laws.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
YOU ARE Yet To Identify THE Loopholes IN Selling Guns YOU mentioned. . That obama will use his extreme wisdom in closing. It's a ruse bro.. research it.
2 ups
So, you're saying Obama didn't change the law. Then what's the fuss all about? How is he further restricting gun owners if he changed nothing? But I did identify the loophole.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Ask Obama's secret service detail if they are designed to kill,.. or save lives. If they are simply designed to kill,.. they need to disarm that detail, because one gun could jump out of its holster, ( by design since it is made to kill).. and take a life. Something tells me that the SS keeps an arsenal on hand to "protect" life. .
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I just said "Guns do nothing by themselves, good or bad." Do you dispute that?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Nope,.. you made a great argument that supports what most pro 2nd amendment folks already know. Guns don't kill people - people kill people. So why more gun regulation that will not effect anything? Correct?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I simply do not see how that conclusion follows from that statement. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." Another clever and true soundbite that doesn't dissuade me from my position at all.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Bro.. I've chatted you up before. You are troll of sorts. You comment to annoy.. I've seen them. You don't create memes.. I've seen them too. You have enough education to be smart enough to research. . But you don't do that either. So.. what exactly are you doing besides trolling?
reply
2 ups
I don't create memes?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Man.. you guys are out today! Get someone else ... I'm taking a break. Go after njrob.. he riles easy. ;)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Replying here to your above comment. Ya gotta do your own research there bro on what he is proposing. But the loophole you mentioned about low volume dealers.. does not exist. Look it up.. regs are already there.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
But are they enforced? Please fill me in on how Obama's executive action infringes on the rights of legal gun owners. My sources are obviously wrong.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Nope. .not filling you in. troll somewhere else.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Attenborough Voice: Pay close attention as the conservative is unable to formulate a response. This in nature is classed as the loser of an argument.
reply
2 ups
Libs think that way! ;)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Then why is it illegal?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
why are pharmaceutical drugs legal lol maybe because they are useful
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
And they are restricted
reply
1 up, 1 reply
and that works because we hardly have any drug problem in this country ;)
reply
[deleted]
1 up
It does work. You don't seem to be distinguishing between illegal use and legal use
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I was asking why murder is illegal.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
because murder is bad
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I don't think you're following... Murder laws work as well as gun laws. So, if you claim gun laws being ineffective is an argument against having them, how can you then support murder laws?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
We have laws already against someone committing a crime with a gun. We don't need more laws to supposedly prevent laws from being broken.Murder is a crime. Owning a gun is not....YET!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The argument is simple: we should not have laws if they don't stop the crime they address. I am not making any statement about guns at all. I am simply saying the argument is unmoving to anyone outside the gun enthusiast echo chamber.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Why don't we just enforce the laws already on the books and stop making laws that help the criminal and harm the law abiding citizen? Put murderers in jail. Put anyone who commits a crime in jail and leave everyone else alone!
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
We're having two different arguments.
2 ups
No law will stop a crime. Crimes are committed by people who have no respect for the law.
[deleted]
2 ups
Yeah, it would be amusing if it weren't so sad but you're doing a valiant effort ( btw https://imgflip.com/i/wpm16 )
reply
[deleted]
1 up
"No law will stop a crime. Crimes are committed by people who have no respect for the law." Do you see how you're arguing laws won't stop crime, yet nobody else is arguing that it will. This is a much more sophisticated argument.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Nice one!

I heard Kurt Russell demolished an anti-gun interviewer with logic. The guy kept trying to imply violent films contribute to "mass shootings". Kurt Russell said he knew how to separate fiction and reality and that it's not an excuse. Then he was like "what are you going to ban next, cars? Knives?"

They can't have my gun, but they can have the bullets. :{
reply
3 ups
If only the rest of Hollywood thought like that guy!
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Think gun control would work in Baltimore? Lmao... ! Nope! Good meme!
reply
2 ups
Thank you.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
Yeah.. like to see them explain that one!
reply
3 ups
Brilliant! I mean, if anyone here was advocating banning guns.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
Lmao! Yeah.. cuz guns leap out dresser drawers and slay thousands daily! Ha ha ha!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
*Looking at this meme's comments*

*Howie Scream*
reply
1 up
Indeed!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
http://youtu.be/Y5vOvrQYMOU
reply
1 up, 1 reply
GREAT VIDEO!! LESS THAN A MINUTE- RECOMMEND USERS WATCH!
reply
1 up
Wow. It's a pretty sharp contrast.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Some guy giving guns to someone who couldn't get them for themselves. How do we stop that is the question. How to keep guns and criminals from having them. Can it be done.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
We have laws in place - they are not enforced as they should be. During prohibition people still got booze,.. Meth, crack,.. and even pharmaceutical drugs are illegal or extremely restricted,.. bad guys still get them. Anytime there are restrictions,.. there will be a black market,.. there will be criminal enterprise,... there will be crime.
reply
1 up
That's what I'm saying. Concentrate on how to keep the bad guys from getting them.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Here's a personal favorite of mine. I could use some support to get it at least moved from Submitted to Featured...it's been sitting in Submitted for 10 hours now https://imgflip.com/i/x2cet
reply
1 up
It was excellent! Comment and upvote!
reply
1 up
Id laugh uncontrolably if he does this.
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
the key is consistent and national laws. Chicago is an island SURROUNDED by vast oceans of loose gun laws. Of course guns will still get in.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
My point from earlier.. we need social change. Gun laws won't effect criminal "attitudes" and antisocial behavior
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 3 replies
People are by nature self serving and greedy. I mean people may not be EVIL by nature but they definitely self-centered. You have to be. It's survival tactic. If 2 people were in a room together and had not had a meal in a day (not starving to death but hungry) and someone said "I have one piece of pizza, who should get it?" the answer would be "me" from both people (greed). However I doubt you would kill each other over it (evil), and i bet in some cases someone would give it to the other person. Because some people are that non-self serving. Very few.

Sometimes you need laws to help MAKE the self-serving people do the right things that aren't life or death but the RIGHT thing to do. Like pay taxes...and be a responsible gun owner.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
High crime in Inner cities are a culture of their own.. that criminal mentality was developed over generations and I don't see any gun control measures fixing that. It's a "take" state.. not work for what I want state. Violence is 2nd nature. . And it is a gun culture.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So the problem developed over generations, but you reject solutions that aren't instant. Thanks for clarifying.
reply
2 ups
Actually bro,.. if you heard Obama's speech,.. HE CLARIFIED THAT. Didn't hear his speech? He said his measures would not prevent gun violence or mass killings. Period,.. bottom line. No problem developed over generations can be corrected instantly. Has immigration been fixed,.. ? Illegal drugs entering the country? Did "sensitivity training" of police departments change cop / hood relations instantly? I think not... but I agree it needs to start somewhere... and soon
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
That's exactly who would lose the guns fastest by attrition. AND those supplying them...if we enacted tough, consistent and enforceable laws.
reply
2 ups
Unless the two people are married. Then the husband will give the piece of pizza to his wife so he could starve to death and be rid of her ;)
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
Nj, your first paragraph, spot on.

I have to ask, regarding your second paragraph, how many laws will it take to turn a low life murdering rapist scumbag drug dealer into a responsible gun owner?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Exactly.. !
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Holy crap. I dont know haw long ago this was, couple days, but I was reading cus this is a big debate for you folks. Here in Canada they tried that 15 -18 yrs ago with a long gun registry. Basically anyone that can buy,shoot,hunt eyc etc. with a gun MUST register their weapons thinking this may hamper gun crime. Stop. Dead stop. Did not work. Law abiding gun owners paid hundreds registering thier weapons, cost the government 2 billion and crime never budged. Then 5 yrs ago new govt. repealed the gun registry.....n .....welll....crime never changed. It was just a tool for the govt. to try and take control of an uncontrolable situation at the expense of the law abiding responsable gun owner. We're not the carry/ conceal kinda society you all are, but we agree we should all be able to have em if we want em. Whatever obama is trying to do baffles because as weve seen, these homeland terrorists get gun no matter what. I dont own guns. But many of my friends do and Ive shot guns, they are quite scary. You really gotta not give a shit to use one, and as far as I know, responsable gun owners respect that....criminals dont. Thats my piece.
reply
2 ups
So you know bro,.. this meme was removed,.. it was on the front page. I contacted the MODS and they re-featured it,.. so I am grateful they reconsidered. Some dweeb complained. I actually recall what you are talking about in Canada,.. because I have a dual citizenship. Many rebelled as I recall and would not register their long guns. My father is a straight arrow,.. and registered his. I advised not, but he did anyway. Now my concern is,.. if anything happens to him, how will I get those heirloom rifles. One of them is 40 yrs old... the others are almost that old. None of them are made anymore. They were all hunting guns... that's it. If the gun owners here in the US rebel and refuse to register,.. the govt does not have the resources to follow up and send people to the houses to check,.. and I think it would turn into shoot outs at too many places. 2ndly,.. our staes have rights too,.. and many will rebel. The US is unique in that we have a constitution that not every country does. The problem with the constitution is that it is viewed VERY differently by the left and right. If the power ever shifted in the Supreme Court to the left,.. it could get a new interpretaion,.. since many liberals view it as an outdated document. The problem with that would be,... then EVERYthing in the constitution is subject to change,.. Free Speech,.. Search and Siezure,.. etc. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

You are 100% right though,... no matter which country you go to,.. criminals will always have guns,.. they do not obey laws. Citizens do. Thank God this is Obamas last year,... and hopefully we get some common sense in the WH again.

Good comment brother!!! Thank you!!
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
These laws would keep the guns away from *those* assholes. And the answer is approximately 5. See my comments below.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Strict gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals any more than strict drug laws keep drugs out of the hands of drug addicts. It's really not that difficult to understand and see it. Keep restricting guns and the right to own them and use them on criminals who decide to break into your home and nothing will happen other than higher homicide rates. Chicago and Washington D.C. are prime examples and you trying to bullshit us with phony statistics about the surrounding areas of loose gun laws is the reason for those cities and their violence is sad.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
They re-featured my meme! But it knocked back to page 3. Still,... it goes to show that contacting the mods can help!!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Nothing on mine yet. We'll see. If nothing by the end of the day, I'm sending another message.
reply
2 ups
Hell yes.. can't have the pansies being bullies.. by using the mods as a tool.. that's the way I see it.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
See my comments below, try zero, or infinity.
reply
1 up
Great discussion!
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
2016 will = "nobama" too.
reply
3 ups
lets just hope it doesn't turn into this.......
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Most guns in mass shootings are legally purchased. But wait.. there's more to the gun control.. stay tuned
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Mass killings are the tool used for gun control... most gun killings are criminal activities. . By criminals .. who acquire firearms illegally. 2,986 gun shootings in chicago alone in 2015. How many mass shootings in the entire USS in that same year? Far less. It's a social attitude of violence .. ignored.. by gun control activists.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
Exactly. Get the guns off the street. Make it a crime to LOSE guns. All guns start out legal...then they disappear.

1. mandatory background checks
2. mandatory training before you can get a gun
3. registration of each gun (can happen with #4)
4. insurance of each gun
5. losing guns can result in losing right to buy guns and/or criminal charges

Now when you finally stop the bleeding of "legal" guns into criminal hands like they end up now...the criminal "illegal" guns will be taken off the streets like they are now in traffic stops, raids, busts, etc. By simple attrition you will eventually have FAR fewer "illegal" guns out there.

And no one has taken away 1 gun from resposible, legal owners.
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
Have you ever wondered why the founding fathers didn't require all that?

They knew people could go crazy and use firearms at a distance from a town.

There's reasons for why they didn't. It's not the governments place to say what you can be armed with to defend yourself. And it's not the government's place to say anyone can't defend themselves.

And if you think that any of that would stop a criminal from being able to acquire a gun or any weapon for that matter or even stop a mass killing, you're naive.

And you're using the future definition of legal gun owner to override a right that isn't given to us by government but by God. And the law itself says it cannot be infringed. That means you can't amend or remove it.

And there's good justified reasons for that law. I would say to any American or nationalizing foreigners that if they don't like that law, they should go south or north. Stop trying to take away that right under the guise of "stopping gun violence".

It's also so easy to make a projectile firing weapon that banning them wouldn't stop gun violence. It would just make people who really want to kill large groups figure out a way to make a "gun" or some other weapon to do it.

Cars are easy to get and can kill more people with less training than a gun. And it doesn't matter how many hoops you have to jump through to get a car, once you had it you can easily plow into a group of people.

Anyone who is supporting the gun laws and thinks it will help anything is mildly retarded. They definitely haven't thought it through to completion. :{
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You said "it's not the government's place to say what you can be armed with to defend yourself." I would have to disagree somewhat. Government is a body of people designed to keep order among the rest of the people. So in the interest of public safety, that's the very reason the gov't exists. Obviously almost all of us agree that there should be at least some restrictions on gun ownership (for example, I don't think anyone here would say that Charles Manson should be handed a rifle). The question is WHAT restrictions we should have.
reply
1 up
You seem to think that just anyone would be able to afford cruise missiles and nukes. Seriously? Do you know that they cost more than a house to build right?

If all citizens are armed though, people like Manson won't act out as rashly. Manson would have been less apt to in the first place if people had exercised their right properly.

I hate to say it, but you don't understand what the American Constitution is all about.

The government works for the people, not the other way around.

"But someone's rights stop when they interfere with someone else's right to safety. Hence the need for at least some restrictions, like the Manson example above."

See? You don't understand the rights granted by God in the Constitution.

My right to defend myself is given by God, so it never ceases. You're comparing to individual's rights to self defense. Both citizens have the same right. If one owns a pistol and the other a shotgun, it's not infringing on the rights of the lesser.

The founding fathers knew that a person could use a cannon to cause great harm, yet, didn't regulate or restrict who could own them And amazingly, there weren't a bunch of people killing each other with them in squabbles and mass shootings.

They also knew about crazy people and didn't restrict it then. Because EVERYONE has the God given right to self defense using ANY weapon.

Treason in the constitutional sense is: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Meaning, trying to aid an enemy by disarming us, or subverting the constitution, or anything that violates your oath to it, is treason by way of aiding/comforting the enemy(any country that seeks the US's downfall, which there are many).

If you support the UN's arms treaty(the real reason the gun laws in America have been questioned) you're committing treason.

The UN wants America to disarm its citizens and accept the UN as a global government. You should be more aware of geopolitical events that threaten America. If you are a citizen of America that is. :{
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well I'm talking about the US government and our 2nd amendment says it all.

We can own Armament(military grade weapons and equipment). If the founding fathers had felt the need to pick WHAT we could own they would have.

But instead they said we have the right granted by God to defend ourselves with ANY weapon we can afford.

And anyone who agrees with restriction or gun laws is okay with violating another's constitutional rights.

That right is stated in the constitution as God given and not by man. So government has no say in the matter.

"Obviously almost all of us agree that there should be at least some restrictions on gun ownership (for example, I don't think anyone here would say that Charles Manson should be handed a rifle). The question is WHAT restrictions we should have."

That's a generalized assumption though and not true at all.

If Charles Manson is released from jail today, he should have the right to own self defense weapons. It's a God given right, not a government given right.

In fact, no one should be released from imprisonment unless they are deemed worthy/capable of being in society again. Manson could just as easily kill with rocks, knives, cars, etc. So your assumption is invalid.

You seem to think the government exists to tell the citizens what to do. It's the other way around in the US. That's how the constitution was set up.

Problem is, we have people swearing oaths to protect our constitution that violate it by enforcing unconstitutional laws like gun control.

What restrictions should we have? None. Restrictions infringe on the citizen's right.

And anyone who swears that oath(I have before and took it seriously) and breaks it is committing treason. Why would you support any politicians who violate the constitutional rights of the citizens? :{
2 ups
"We can own armament (military grade weapons and equipment). If the founding fathers had felt the need to pick WHAT we could own they would have"
I agree with this, more or less. A tomahawk missile is military grade but I don't think they should be sold at Walmart :p

If Charles Manson were to be released from prison, I don't believe he should be allowed to own a firearm. There are some people (such as violent felons) who, for the safety of society, should not be allowed to own firearms in my opinion.

"You seem to think the government exists to tell the citizens what to do. It's the other way around in the US. That's how the constitution was set up."

I would sort of agree and sort of disagree. It's a fine balance between the people telling the government what to do and the government telling the people what to do.

" what restrictions should we have? None. Restrictions infringe on the citizen's right." But someone's rights stop when they interfere with someone else's right to safety. Hence the need for at least some restrictions, like the Manson example above.

I would disagree that breaking an oath constitutes treason however. Treason is attempting to overthrow the government. Breaking an oath may be illegal or at least reprehensible, but it's not the same as trying to overthrow the government
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 11 replies
Do you think Obama Laws will make gun deaths increase or decrease
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Never have I seen so much effort to avoid thinking. You need your fantasy Star Wars. The world around you is just too real for you."

Translation: "I lost and can't admit it".

So because you're wrong, you try and attack me personally? And you say I'M avoiding thinking? The discussion is on gun rights, not my hobbies.

If you don't like America's constitution, why not leave? Or is the rest of the world too "real" for YOU? :{
[deleted]
2 ups
no need to get angry at me just because your condition won't pass mental health background checks to get guns legally. I only looked up your condition because another user mentioned it. I honestly was just asking a simple 1 line question and you don't wish to answer. No big deal ok.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
"no need to get angry at me just because your condition won't pass mental health background checks to get guns legally. I only looked up your condition because another user mentioned it. I honestly was just asking a simple 1 line question and you don't wish to answer. No big deal ok."

Jokes on you I already own a stockpile of rifles, shotguns, and pistols. lol

See what I mean about you having nothing to back up your argument so you resort to attacking me personally?

lol "your condition". Can't think of anything huh?

Also, I answered your questions but you've yet to answer mine.

So again, you asked: "Do you think Obama Laws will make gun deaths increase or decrease"

I answered: "If it made gun deaths decrease, but knife/any other weapon attacks increase, what was the point?" Meaning, even if Obama made a law that lowered the number of gun deaths, the number of other weapon's(including cars) deaths would increase to accommodate for the lack of firearms.

It's pointless to argue that you or anyone can prevent homicides. Where there's a will, there's a way.

If you've got nothing but personal attacks against me, I suggest that you research the constitution more. :{
2 ups
That is the best volley of comments to rip apart anti gun nuts I have ever read! Hands down! I copied and sent to a LEO buddy.
[deleted]
1 up
You are asking a hypothetical situation (IF), whereas I am not. The laws are new and real. But it seems real is not your forte. But if you are talking hypothetical, then a gun law could definitely affect taking away your guns. And it could happen on the basis of you your bi polar condition. btw your "menwithdolls" online profile is hilarious, sums you up.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Is that a question?

If it made gun deaths decrease, but knife/any other weapon attacks increase, what was the point?

If you're a US citizen, you should be more concerned about your bill of rights.

The right to bear(own) Arms(armament) is given to us by God in the US constitution, not men. The right can't be infringed.

So if any representatives, who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution to get into office, makes/enforces a law that infringes on that right, they are committing treason and those laws are void.

Why would I trust anyone who swears they'll protect those rights, but then attempts to infringe on them after their oath? :{
[deleted]
2 ups
Yes, it's a question, but you don't seem to want to answer it without mentioning the constitution, which they do not infringe. If you are focused on the constitution though, can I ask you this also, what level or category of armament do you believe restrictions should begin at? ie flamethrowers, nuclear, molotov, tank, etc.. or do you believe any type of armament is everybody's god given right
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I did answer it. With a better question.

If it made gun deaths decrease, but knife/any other weapon attacks increase, what was the point?

And I already answered your other question. God gave us the right to defend ourselves, not man.

Also, why wouldn't I mention the constitution? You're talking about infringing a right within it.

And any restriction on the 2nd amendment is infringement. So why claim that they aren't?

The 2nd Amendment was written at the time when cannons were still used and citizens could own them.

The founding fathers knew that people COULD go crazy as well, yet weren't cowering in fear over the thought like you anti-gun nuts.

You guys are also not looking into historical disarmament enough to understand why the 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights. :{
[deleted]
2 ups
You just refuse to answer it on its own merit.

Answering a question with a question is a politician tactic and doesn't work on intelligent people. I am not asking or answering any hypothetical.

I'm not talking about a right to infringe. Obama laws are not infringing.

The law is claiming they aren't infringing, not me.

What's your point about the cannons..

I'm not cowering in fear or an anti-gun nut, quite the contrary.

You still haven't answered both questions. Oh well.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Do you think Obama Laws will make gun deaths increase or decrease"
followed by
"I am not asking or answering any hypothetical."

That is a hypothetical question. lol

And again, I answered it. I asked: "If it made gun deaths decrease, but knife/any other weapon attacks increase, what was the point?"

You don't want to answer because you see how your initial question had it's logic destroyed.

You don't seem to understand how the constitution or the oaths of office work.

To infringe means to break or remove. If we have a right that says all citizens can own any weapon and a government official, who swears an oath to protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, makes a law that limits/restricts who can own a weapon and what kind of weapons, then they infringed on that right AND broke their oath. Which is treasonous.

And if the law is claiming that they aren't infringing and you believed it you're gullible. They are infringing and breaking their oaths.

Did you seriously not get the point about the cannons? The point was that if the founding fathers were allowing people to own any weapons including a cannon(far more destructive than a single firearm) then they knew the ramifications of allowing EVERYONE to own Armament(military grade weapons and equipment/all weapons).

You must be afraid of gun deaths if you're trying to support unconstitutional laws and oath breaking officials.

Maybe you aren't an "anti gun nut" but you are being nutty about gun laws so it's easy to get you confused with one.

And I had answered your two questions but you must be choosing not to accept the truth. :{
[deleted]
2 ups
Never have I seen so much effort to avoid thinking. You need your fantasy Star Wars. The world around you is just too real for you.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"My question is not a view, you just can't handle answering it, or the truth. Play with those dolls kid."

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really have nothing, don't you kid? You think that making fun of my hobbies bothers me? ROFL! ROFL! Indeed!

And of course your question is a view. It's also a hypothetical question.

And, I've answered it many times, you just refuse to accept the truth.

It must suck not being able to argue your views and having to resort to stalking a guy to get fuel for your liberal fire. :{
[deleted]
1 up
Ok, fair enough, you win.. the title of being mentally unstable (insert hundreds of exclamations).
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Ok, fair enough, you win.. the title of being mentally unstable (insert hundreds of exclamations)."

Translation: "I've got nothing but insults"

It's okay. You tried. :{
[deleted]
1 up
I've already done my job in my first question. Your diatribe since then has just cemented it. Thank you btw, continue
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"I've already done my job in my first question. Your diatribe since then has just cemented it. Thank you btw, continue"

So just more nothing huh?

Keep trying. You might make a real point someday. :{
[deleted]
1 up
Yeah, everything you say is rock solid, but I guess that's why America is regarded globally as the most intelligent country on earth. I enjoyed reading your responses to Octavia too. Thanks again, sincerely, no need to reply. I can tell you are busy with your dolls.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Yeah, everything you say is rock solid, but I guess that's why America is regarded globally as the most intelligent country on earth. I enjoyed reading your responses to Octavia too. Thanks again, sincerely, no need to reply. I can tell you are busy with your dolls."

ROFL! Just more insults instead of facts.

If you don't like America, leave. I'm sure other countries are fine with stalking trolls like you. :{
[deleted]
1 up
Did you want me to answer something?
reply
1 up
"Did you want me to answer something?"

Is asking that supposed to add to your belief that you're somehow correct about anything? :{
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"You are asking a hypothetical situation (IF), whereas I am not. The laws are new and real. But it seems real is not your forte. But if you are talking hypothetical, then a gun law could definitely affect taking away your guns. And it could happen on the basis of you your bi polar condition. btw your "menwithdolls" online profile is hilarious, sums you up."

ROFL! So you think that if you stalk me and the other sites I use, I'll be wrong? LMAO!!!! Is that all you've got kid?

And maybe you're to ignorant to see, but your question "Do you think Obama Laws will make gun deaths increase or decrease" is just as hypothetical as mine.

Look, you obviously have nothing to back your views up with but stalking and insulting your opponent when instead, you could have done actual research. lol Pathetic.

Keep trying kid. :{
[deleted]
1 up
My question is not a view, you just can't handle answering it, or the truth. Play with those dolls kid.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 4 replies
In most states it takes more training and hoops to get a car and license. Also cars are used for transportation. Guns are make with the sole purpose of killing. Or practicing to kill. You have weak points.

Ps- I love guns. Here's mine
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Name those states where it's easier.. that's not true. And what source are you getting your info from that guns are only for killing? Guns in the criminals hands are.. because of the thug and rebellious attitudes that have been cultured over decades by liberals.
[deleted]
2 ups
Guns are made to kill. What else are they used for except "target practice" which is like practicing to kill. Animals....humans....whatever. Killing is the main reason/purpose for guns. To deny that is silly.
reply
3 ups
Saying they're weak points is easy. Prove it.

Which states are you referring to?

A car is as deadly in the right situation.

Guns are made to kill in DEFENSE though as well as hunting. So, no. To say that they're made solely for killing is to "edit the graph" so to speak.

And you claim I made weak points? Riiiight.

There's a difference between loving guns and supporting the 2nd amendment. I'd rather support the second amendment like any intelligent patriotic citizen would. :{
reply
1 up
"Killing in self defense....OK. Whatever. We agree. I love my guns. LOVE THEM. Here's a funny one for you to read: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/6/1466676/-Open-Carry-Texans-with-legal-guns-now-have-to-prove-they-have-legal-guns-in-ironic-twist-of-fate"

I love how that is "proof" you're right in your mind. That's also one site's opinion.

You don't expect me to believe that's a reputable news source do you?

It's cool that you can't admit when you're wrong dude. It's cool. :{
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Guns are made to kill. What else are they used for except "target practice" which is like practicing to kill. Animals....humans....whatever. Killing is the main reason/purpose for guns. To deny that is silly."

Actually, guns are made for self defense. You're just trying to spin it solely on killing to garner sympathy for your illogical views.

To deny THAT is propaganda.

Nice try, but no, intelligent people see how valuable the 2nd amendment is. :{
[deleted]
2 ups
Killing in self defense....OK. Whatever. We agree. I love my guns. LOVE THEM. Here's a funny one for you to read: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/6/1466676/-Open-Carry-Texans-with-legal-guns-now-have-to-prove-they-have-legal-guns-in-ironic-twist-of-fate
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
See once you sell a gun or lose it the insurance company would usually have to know. Also before it was sold (or bought) the buyer would have to get it insured byt serial number. Again, a cross check to know who has it and where. If someone loses a gun somehow it should be reported lost/stolen and the insurance company would know. Now that owner is a risk. They can certainly buy another gun but like when you are a bad driver, your rates go up.

There are MANY ways this type of system of laws will help get guns out of the hands of criminals....the ones you think of in inner cities and the criminals supplying them with guns, and out of the hands of general idiots.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 3 replies
So, increase the scarcity of guns, you'll increase demand. Increased demand equals increased incentive to break the law by supplying black market goods by "losing" guns. It sounds like the business model of another Chicago native, Al Capone.
reply
2 ups
Yeah, like all the "lost" guns with "fast and furious" spearheaded by Hillary Clinton. Lol!
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 3 replies
Has to come from somewhere...people that buy them legally and sell them illegally. And it would be very hard to do that if the laws were in place. The guns would be accounted for from every step.
[deleted]
2 ups
The guns that are not accounted for NOW that don't end up in criminal hands are just that. Not in criminal hands. You have to start somewhere. Getting the (illegal) guns off the streets by seizure/confiscation like they do now is a start. There is no better plan coming from anywhere else. You have to stop the bleeding at sometime.
1 up
I hit reply to Invicta by accident. That was supposed to be a reply to you.
2 ups
Really? How many guns are not accounted for now? Millions? Criminals will register them? Like black market pharmaceuticals are accounted for? That's a VERY strict industry. . But still make it in the hands of those who should not have them... correct?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
And here's the thing....guns wouldn't be more scarce to law abiding citizens. So the only people that would be effect are by default. ..criminals.
reply
1 up
but, we ARE finished with you
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
No one will take anyone's guns and no one will be restricted. Not nationwide anyway. Barack Obama can break the laws all he wants (or try to) but guns won't be one of them. Texas is already passing open carry laws which would allow a responsible gun owner to be able to carry his/her gun on their hip. Open carry in most public places. That probably gets anti-gun, anti-second amendment people like you all revved up, I'm sure.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So, I read through this novel because I wanted to see what people are actually thinking stricter gun control laws will do. I'm very worried about people that do not have the ability to look at history and learn from it. I'm concerned that they lack knowledge of mental health disorders and how prevalent they actually are, they lack knowledge of government tyranny, they can look back long enough to retell a story while thinking how awful that must have been but they really can't apply that knowledge to their current path? Is it just a given that we are doomed to forever circle through these repeated patterns? No government or political party is capable of keeping corruption and greed from their ranks. Nobody is immune to the effects of any level of power over another and how it makes one feel. That is why they designed the government here to be representative of the citizens, making sure that any person appointed understands that they are working for citizens not over the citizens, the citizens are supposed to be in a position where they are capable of stopping it from becoming the Tyranny that they had all crossed the ocean and waged a brutal war to escape. It is hard for me to look kindly on the founding fathers because I know that their intent was not meant for the protection of my people but as it is worded and stands now, it does extend to us, each and every citizen. So citizens need to think hard about what they were trying to accomplish and why. Why are you all so blind to lobbyists, corporate greed, and huge money campaign backers? Why do you not see that digging into private mental health information is only going to effect those that seek treatment, these are the ones that are the most healthy as they can identify an error in their thought processes. In today's society with all the stress, abuses, tensions, traumas you and I would be hard pressed to find someone that did not need some mental health support at some point in their life and the only thing that differs between one person and another is whether someone sought out help or didn't & nobody else noticed. What you ask, to see into the mind if another and know whether or not they are going to have a mental break is as impossible as seeing into the heart of the person asking for your trust that if elected they will follow through with anything they said they were going to do. Whose interests did they protect? By tossing privacy & freedoms to keep your neighbor in check, you enslave yourselves.
reply
1 up
I am sorry for not responding earlier,.. some pansy ass complained about this meme and it was removed,.. I contacted the mods and common sense kicked in,.. and they put back.

I see your perspective,.. and VERY well written (sister)! I don't think anyone will disagree that the seriously mentally ill should not have guns,... BUT,.. The one problem with this mental health issue I see, in being used as a tool to prevent guns.. is that it is too broad. Like you said,... everyone has been "down" and maybe needed some counseling from a divorce,.. etc. If this is used against gun ownership. . people who need counseling will NOT go for fear of losing their 2nd amendment rights. But they own guns,.. and now won't go get some beneficial counseling. And anyone can make an accusation to be vendictive. . and then what? It's a poor move by this president,.. and it is going to BACKFIRE badly I think. Good comment!!! (sister!)
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
MORE GUN CONTROL MEASURES MR. PRESIDENT ? TRY IT IN CHICAGO 1ST,.. LET US KNOW HOW IT WORKS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back