Gun Control

14867 239950669471452 1576273731 n - gun control

58243 240203429446176 1692154977 n - gun control

72249 239607446172441 966131129 n - gun control

184530 239453916187794 400971988 n - gun control

227680 239558346177351 1444801821 n - gun control

282844 239462339520285 356874308 n - gun control

312460 239637316169454 1266347634 n - gun control

318095 239076269558892 979996899 n - gun control

385331 239493402850512 1764289662 n - gun control

394922 239617206171465 1178306521 n - gun control

397637 10151170202676792 1322688017 n - gun control

397705 239963959470123 1719411348 n - gun control

406024 238670939599425 1325102120 n - gun control

422185 239095099557009 553710175 n - gun control

427554 238222649644254 2088380700 n - gun control

429162 239169129549606 1680995272 n - gun control

431240 239578836175302 792629001 n - gun control

431251 239854466147739 1229230 n - gun control

530782 239582012841651 1234161956 n - gun control

537884 239474012852451 414294587 n - gun control

537887 239235726209613 302754142 n - gun control

541939 239623839504135 300362519 n - gun control

553155 239586172841235 355934592 n - gun control

603190 239099579556561 754488009 n - gun control

735090 239159549550564 1401087407 n - gun control

    Views: 4,778
  • johnecash
  • January 15, 2013, 11:30 am
You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 4

    Lol, jonnecash is rank 69. I think we should try and keep it that way just to be annoying ;)

    are you saying i give as good as i take ;)?
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 2:50 pm
    Jesus Christ, Johnecash, no one wants to think about your sex life. Goddammit I need mind bleach.
    - Ertrov January 15, 2013, 11:37 pm
    Wow I was talking about debating. Nothing like assuming is there?
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 12:30 am
  • 3

    I think this is history in the making, me and Johnecash are agreeing on something!

    New post, new topic. We agree on this one. Nothing wrong with that. Don't worry my friend, in the future we will disagree again.
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 9:28 am
  • 2

    Living in the mid-west, South Dakota to be exact, guns are a large part of our culture, i started shooting at the age of 4 and i always carry one on me, well in my car, I live out of town so I have seen coyotes in my front lawn, it’s for defense, I’m not gona go and shoot up a school, if anyone tries to shoot up my school, I guarantee I am a better shot than any law enforcement in my town.

    • DJ9090
    • January 15, 2013, 3:41 pm
    Ever notice that most shooting sprees are in "gun free" zones? It never happens at a gun show or NRA rally. . . . hhhhmmmmmmmm. . .
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 4:04 pm
    Wow, I though that no one in this state knew what sharenator was...
    - TheRussianBadger January 16, 2013, 10:58 am
    Plenty of people do, they just sit back and enjoy the site, and they don't actively participate in commenting or discussion
    - DJ9090 January 17, 2013, 9:22 am
  • 2

    I do think gun laws work when properly enforced and should definitely be applied in certain areas. Though I am not British I currently live in London, and thank god there are very limited guns here, stabbings are far too common, I'd hate to think what it would be like here if there were guns available.

    At the same time I realise how it wouldn't work in the US, guns are almost a part of your culture over there and have been since the days of the frontiers. That being said I think they should limit the range of weapons that you can purchase over there, automatic weapons for example I see as somewhat unnecessary.

    Automatic has been banned since 1986.
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 7:13 pm
    And the ones made prier to 86 might as well be banned not many law abiding people have the 18 plus grand to shell out for an M-16
    - triclebickle January 16, 2013, 12:55 am
    Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer. So even when they were legal, they didn't cause the amount of trouble. Funny how the media never reports this.
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 9:28 am
  • 2

    I love #11. My thoughts exactly

    It's funny because its true.
    - johnecash January 30, 2013, 4:55 pm
  • 2

    #24 made me laugh

    • Aorbous
    • January 15, 2013, 10:56 pm
    Presidential hypocrisy is always funny.
    - johnecash January 30, 2013, 4:56 pm
  • 2

    I still have yet to hear a good reason as to why stronger gun control is a good thing. 2nd Amendment baby!

    Looks like the anti gun nuts are ass sore again.
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 12:37 am
  • 2

    Johne, I understand why people used to hate you, but now that you're back and I've experienced your mindset and personality through your posts and comments, I don't understand why people can't accept other people's opinions and beliefs.

    You cannot, and will not be able to rid the USA of guns. Period. There's too many of them. Legal and Illegal. Now ask yourself this. If you knew that criminals would always be able to find guns and use them, what would your choice be? To defend yourself, or wait for the police to handle it?

    Ok, I know some gun control absolutists chose police. Ok, so ask yourself this. What happens when the police ARE the criminals? Who do you call then?

    It's simple things like this that cause people to be too reliant on the idea that the U.S. government could never be corrupt, or that people with power would never abuse it. Think about what you're subjecting yourself to by giving up the only thing standing in the way of corruption and your right to freedom.

    You preach the truth, please continue on. It's ok to agree or disagree with me. I only ask you take it one topic at a time. None the less I know many people don't like me due to my impatience with ignorance. Most people think ignorant is a derogatory word. Most people don't know the definition of the word.
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 9:21 am
    sometimes i use another word for ignorant... just to amuse myself at other peoples offense
    - MIKYTEY January 18, 2013, 8:11 pm
  • 2

    Why should I be striped of my rights because of what other people do? This isn't a matter of safety it's a matter of control. Why create a database of firearms when the only people on there are people who won't commit crimes? Why restrict people from buying a certain type of gun or a magazine that holds an arbitrary amount of bullets when the only people who would follow the rules aren't committing crime? This might be the straw that breaks the camels back and I'm glad as hell that I won't be in California if it happens.

    My favorite part is people saying assault weapons need to be banned even though assault weapons have been banned.
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 9:23 am
  • 2

    illogical reference as abortion is at times needed and effects the individuals right to make a choice (isn't that what republicans say? who can make a better choice for me in my situation than me? only you guys don't like that argument unless it's talking about money then it becomes a "fuck you do what i say" kind of thing)
    banning guns isn't the question limiting firing power is. unless there was an all out revolt by the american people they wouldn't stand a chance assault weapons or not. (possibly not at all given the technology that US military possess now days. it would be like bringing a stick of butter to take out a tank. however this has it's merits i give you that. but the gap in weapons power certainly exceeds well beyond anything we could imagine. i find it highly unlikely that this is valid anymore.)
    illogical, everything has it's exceptions. we don't make murder legal on the basis that it doesn't stop all murders. if you would like to apply the same logic to this then by alrights go ahead. but it further demonstrates my point. making murder may not prevent all murders, but it may prevent a vast majority which would other wise be committed had it been legal. using the same logic (as you've applied it to guns) we could say that while not preventing all killings it could prevent a vast majority.
    Chicago is one city easily accessible by the outside world, given a controlled environment and cutting them off would more than likely show much better results to the laws. this is simply unrealistic for obvious reasons, however if these were applied at the county, state or national level the resulting impact on this city would more than likely have a greater effect. however regulation would do much more to help this i believe as it is likely more of a result of corruption from the (legal) arms dealers who are not regulated enough and are able to get away with putting these guns on the street.
    again not sure if this would help at this point.
    6- same thing
    7- ok? he has a logical opinion on a controversial topic? it's not like he's the speaker for all people anti gun. that would be like me saying that bill O'rielly is the only one we can listen to about christianity. he does a tv program thats it.
    8-.... really guy? so she can't choose whether or not to have a kid because other people say so but if she chooses to own a gun she's the picture of liberty? so when it comes to her own body and has a direct impact on her life and no one else's she shouldn't be allowed to choose but when people ask if maybe we could limit the guns able to be purchased suddenly its all "Its MHY riaght ta own this here guun". such hypocrisy when it comes to ones rights.
    aside from that it's again off topic and an illogical statement for previously stated reasons.
    9- Fair argument but in those days their was literally only you and you alone to defend yourself. weapons were a logical then. now we live in a society where we are able to call for help. it's still a fair point, but limiting and regulating guns and making it harder to get illegal guns reduces the need to defend ones self. but again they aren't looking to ban all guns but put limits, you are still able to defend yourself.
    10- not trying to take those guns... just limit the ones on the bottom so the aren't used on the public.
    11- can you make a drug at home? yes. can you make a gun at home? possibly but it's not nearly as likely.
    12- again not likely to help anymore. an assault rifle versus a drone or tank isn't ending in favor of the guy with the gun.
    13- i agree with him about the value of life but not gun regulation, but considering we aren't able to get through to some people about the value of life and are forced to rely on the parents of said child to teach them that meaning of life i think taking an extra step to prevent shootings is a logical option. and considering how unregulated it is already it's this would do nothing but help.
    14- obviously not, it will however help to a degree by making it harder to get them.
    15- forks aren't designed to kill... besides are you going to let the government tell you what you can eat? illogical argument
    16- not relevant to the post. in any case illogical statement. if you can't eat then all money earned goes to food, get stuck in a low incomes job (such as walmart) and you now have a choice between eating or living on the streets. not everyone is well off we can help those who need help.
    17- again diverting topic but lets see... Began under bush, Began under bush and occurred due to his actions, (2006) Began under bush, sorry where where those weapon weapons of mass destruction? and Romney got it passed here in mass and i see very little downside to it. in truth much of it helps reduce the strain on middle class families.
    18- the fast and furious reference which started under bush
    19- yes but they also have real functions in society that don't pertain to killing or maiming which are the only functions of a gun
    20- or we have a lot more scared people with guns who could make many mistakes in judgement under pressure.and cause even more people to die should they lose their cool.
    21- i think we need a new approach all together though as stated before it is likely these laws would be more effective if they were adopted at the state or national level.
    22- we get it we get it government bad. you scared. crunk go lie down now.
    seriously though gun versus take, not likely going to the guy with the gun.
    23- don't want to take the guns just want to make them a little harder to get
    24-he's the president. he needs guards other wise he gets shot... he doesn't get the option like we do.
    25- see your point but who's going to try and invade the US anyway? we have a military that is more than capable of defending us.

    in short your arguments are this i want to protect myself from others, from the government and it's my right to own a gun. i agree all your rights and the more power to you in doing so. but regulation of guns is needed and should be considered as a viable option. no one is attempting to take all of the guns but we do need to consider limiting the types and the power behind each one. it can do nothing but benefit the general public and is perfectly logical to attempt to prevent gun crime by making guns harder to obtain.

    All I can figure out is that you were drunk posting again. Please sober up to post.
    - johnecash January 21, 2013, 9:28 am
    i can and will delete any and all comments of you referring to my state of mind, should you ever make a claim about my state of sobriety without me saying what state i was in. you sir have no right in anyway to make such claims. i made that one in a clearly joking way that you took offense to and apologized for it. this was made in a perfectly sober state of mind.
    I've given you fair warning here. Don't push your luck here John, i'm always very respectful to you until you make an insulting claim. this is your last warning.
    - 24paperwings January 21, 2013, 9:38 am
    aside from that i will say no i wasn't drinking and i'm glad to have been able to tear your post apart :) have a good day john
    - 24paperwings January 21, 2013, 9:41 am
    I gave you more than fair warning. continue along with johnecash and you will regret it.
    - 24paperwings January 21, 2013, 5:32 pm
    john i have been very kind to you. but that has it's limits. if you continue i will ban you from the site. this is due to you insulting me by calling me a drunk. i am giving you plenty of chances to act civil. continue this and i will remove you from here permanently. this has nothing to do with your views, it simply has to due with your lack of common decency and disrespectful and insulting references to a comment i made in a joking manor. if you refuse i will remove you from the site. i don't wish to and i would like to continue our debate in a civil manor. however you are forcing my hand.
    - 24paperwings January 21, 2013, 6:13 pm
    I am forcing you am I?
    No One Can Make You Feel Inferior Without Your Consent - elanore roosevelt
    You do what you have to do. You don't want people talking about your drinking, don't bring up your drinking. So far all you have proven is you are a mean drunk with a double standard. If this site does not want to apply the same rules to you as it does me and everyone here, if the rules are not universal than I am already gone.
    - johnecash January 21, 2013, 6:21 pm
    i spoke to you the last time in a friendly and joking manor about a comment i had made the night previously hoping that you would be decent enough of a human being to be able to respond with out getting butthurt about it. since then you have done nothing but insult me about it. i have always been kind and respectful towards you and i do NOT want to have any conflict with you over something so trivial. it was my mistake to think you could be a decent person in anyway. however i have changed my mind. you are nothing but a troll who cares nothing about respect. this is the last time i will be speaking to you. I will not ban you as of this moment but i promise you if i think for a second that you are stepping out of line again i will not hesitate to rid this site of you. I will be speaking to the other mods about this, I don't want this to go any further than it has to. this will be the last time i communicate with you. good bye.
    - 24paperwings January 21, 2013, 6:32 pm
    I see you may speak to me In a joking manner but I may not speak to you in the same manner. I get it, you don't have the same rules for yourself you expect of others.
    Then again as badly as I blew your argument out of the water the best course of action would not be to defend your point of view, you would rather go tell mommy about how the other kids were mean to you. Yes I see, when you can no longer debate with some one, you just edit, delete their post. Well done proving how sad you are. I am truly sorry for continuing down the path of discussions you alcohol abuse. If I knew you were truly this sensitive and unable to take a joke, a joke you started least you forget, I might not had gone down this path. Or if you didn't get, as you put it, so butt hurt by a joke you started I might have a shred of respect for you.
    I have never had an issue with you either. Lets hope next time we don't, but I take people one topic at a time. But then you had decide to edit. That's makes you a sad man. Many people say i dont have to like what you have to say but ill fight for your right to say it. that is not just a saying for me. I have fought for your rights. The welcome I get is you trying to edit mine. It's sad you want to live in an edited world. Speak to me again or don't, what do I care? It's a arbitrary rule you place on yourself that does not in any way shape or form affect me. As of now I don't have much time for mean drunks with double standards who can't take a joke, a joke you started.
    Have a great day. I know I will.
    - johnecash January 21, 2013, 8:31 pm
    Still waiting on you to follow through on your promises. don't you just hate it when people make promises they don't deliver on? it was my mistake to think you could be a decent person in anyway seeing as you are a drunk.

    - johnecash January 29, 2013, 10:06 am
    Calling some one a troll, yet another breach of the tos

    Offensive posts
    Debates are ok, but rude, insulting, attacking, hateful, profane, threatening comments are not allowed. Be polite! Any offensive posts will be deleted.
    - NotJohnEcash February 12, 2013, 10:46 am
  • 2

    Great post!

    Thank you. Too many on this site want to blame a gun and not the shooter.
    - johnecash January 29, 2013, 9:00 pm
    LOL, yea. I've found this site to be full of idealistic liberal college students.
    - iceman0305 January 30, 2013, 8:37 am
    Be warned if you are out of school, paying taxes and live in the real world, not just read about it, you are in the minority. If you are able to legally drink that makes you an old man on this site.
    - johnecash January 30, 2013, 9:40 am
  • 2

    I'm sorry, but bacon is the essence of life. It doesn't kill people, they simply ascend to a greater state of being.

    • Disco
    • January 21, 2013, 10:41 am
  • 1

    in germany for example you have to be 21 and need to get a gun license and also need a good reason for having those. Then you need to lock the guns away and so on. And as you can see the death rate by firearms is extremly low. Gun control is useful.
    I've been to georgia one year, I was 18 at that time, I am not an american citizen, but I was able to buy a gun. I could've bought a gun and just shoot people. I asked at a walmart and I could've buy a gun, at a walmart.

    • Vans
    • January 15, 2013, 3:36 pm
    What gun did you buy?
    I would not advise opening fire due to anger in the south, like Georgia, we fire back in these parts.
    We have gun laws. THOUSANDS of them.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." -Mr. Pimp Daddy Thomas Jefferson
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 4:03 pm
  • 1

    "Regulated" is a word I think a lot of people forget is in the 2nd ammendment.

    • taez555
    • January 15, 2013, 6:36 pm
    Yes a well regulated militia but it says nothing about regulating civilians.
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 7:14 pm
    Exactly! Thank you. It's nice to see someone gets it. Civilians can't have any guns. Period. Only militia members who are regulated. Seems pretty clear to me. If they're regulated they can have all the AR-15's or assualt rifles they want. I just don't see why Obama does't get that?
    - taez555 January 15, 2013, 8:14 pm
    I think you missed the entire point of johnecash's comment. The 2nd Amendment says "...a well regulated militia.."
    Militia - a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
    Citizens in the U.S. are allowed guns. Period.
    - tbart2010 January 15, 2013, 8:30 pm
    Yeah man you missed the point of the 2nd amendment.
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 8:50 pm
    Seems some people don't like it when things are explained. Shame on you for politely pointing taez misconception. That's the anti gun crowd for you.
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 12:34 am
    i missed the point of a bullet, because i shot back
    - MIKYTEY January 18, 2013, 8:15 pm
  • 1

    and I think it's sus how school shootings start rising just after the push for gun control, I mean come on... Obvious much? take away their guns then who will be a threat to them when they enforce martial law or something similar

Related Posts