69
70

Marriage material right here. (i.imgur.com)

conductionband が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]jayhow90Straya bro 50ポイント51ポイント  (25子コメント)

Gun ruined it for me

[–]Xsy 28ポイント29ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not a fan of guns either, but I'd forgive him if he took his shirt off.

[–]thestrugglesreal 2ポイント3ポイント  (23子コメント)

Why? Just out of curiosity

[–]not_sucking_it 22ポイント23ポイント  (7子コメント)

For it wasn't that he had a gun, but the portrayed overly prominent role of guns in his life. Gun worshipy.

[–]xayma 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plus the whole mixing of guns and alcohol thing. It was a sip yes, but he associates guns with beer, not a good combination.

[–]thestrugglesreal -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

How'd you draw that conclusion from him picking up a single gun?

[–]not_sucking_it 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well, it's a caricature where the gun was given the same importance as beer and bacon, and the rifle was like his wife.

[–]thestrugglesreal -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Exactly, its a caricature. Its him being hyper masculine for a funny video...

[–]many_cuffs 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Guns aren't masculine or feminine.

[–]israeli_horse_porn 26ポイント27ポイント  (8子コメント)

Because they're intended to destroy life. I don't find that attractive.

People object to that statement, but I'm pretty sure that one of the first rules of gun use is to only point it at something if you intend to destroy it.

[–]Justchillun -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Guns are a tool just like any other. They are meant to take life, correct. They can be used to feed a people, or defend life. Guns themselves are not a negative it is the men that use this tool that creat the evil.

[–]merlix3 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

The old "the sword isn't evil, it's the man that wields it that is" thing is bullshit. It could be true if guns could be used for something else than causing injury. But it isn't. A shovel can be used to kill but it can be used to dig a well. Guns can only be use to kill or injure. Those "uses" you described are indirect consequences of gun use, or killing. You can't use guns to feed a people, you can use them to kill an other and take their land and resources. You can't use guns to defend lives, you can use them to kill the attackers. A field of corn can feed a people, a shield can defend lives. Guns are, and will always be, a weapon and only that. There are always better ways to solve a problem that by the use of violence, whether it be with guns or any other weapon. Those who think otherwise are either fools or violent by nature.

[–]boyinthewild 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but you can use guns to hunt.

[–]merlix3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yet the direct consequence of the use of the gun is the injury and death of an animal. Just like using a gun at war results in the injury and death of animals. The only difference is the species. My point is that reducing guns to a simple "tool" is like saying the atomic theories are "technological advances" or that biological warfare studies are made in the name of "defense" (yes that happens, I could talk about that for a long time, I'm a microbiologist). All three expressions are hiding the dangerous natures of these things. I am not saying that they cannot be useful, I am glad that police officers are armed (my father is in the Federal police here in Canada and I'm glad he's had is gun in the past) or that nuclear theory as given new energy sources. But by presenting them in a trivial aspect, almost as a object of worship, like they do in this video the danger and potential threat guns represent is hidden and that can be extremely dangerous.

[–]Justchillun 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The fact of the matter is we live in a world full of violence, hate and injustice. If a man is intent on doing unjust harm or violence he will do so. One can not talk him down from his evil. Throughout history mad, evil man achieve power and use its influence to cause harm to others. War or violence sometimes is the only way of subduing these men. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmond Burke. Is killing, war, and pain all detestable, yes. However, it is very necessary occasionally. Evil is very real and good men should always be ready to fight for truth and justice. "Freedom is never more than one Generation away from extinction" Ronald Reagan. Evil and Violence are part of this fallen word of ours, no amount of appeasement will ever be enough to quench its thirst for blood. Weapons allow good, just causes to win the day and hold back the shadow of Tierney. It is naïve to think otherwise. If You Give A Mouse A Muffin" I do not know if you have read this children's book. It has a very clear and true life lesson in it about appeasement.

[–]merlix3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I understand that there is violence and "evil" in this word (though that notion in itself is very debatable). It is my opinion that there are only two ways to face this knowledge: Assume that most of the world is "evil" and that one is "good" (because everybody think they are "good") and prepare to defend oneself against the world OR assume that, even if "evil" is present, most of the world is "good" and therefore try to spread that good further.

You see, only one of these two justifies the possession of a gun (for the average citizen that is not law enforcement in a country not currently in civil war). Actually, the possession of a hunting gun isn't even that bad in my opinion. But an assault riffle? Is that really necessary? To defend oneself? Against who, the squirrels that might steal from your garden in your suburban house?

PS: I also can copy paste some random quotes to further my opinion. Quotes are only useful if they help your argument, not if they are the core of it. But to hell with it, he's one of my favorite:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Sun Tzu - The Art of War

[–]Justchillun [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh, I forgot to ask, how is killing the attacker not defending the victim?

[–]Justchillun [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The second amendment is not to defend your property and positions from bark yard rodents, it is to defend your rights and lives from those that would try and take it. Your own government, just to name one. The government should fear and respect the people not the other way around. What is one of the first moves a tyrant does to subdue the people. Remove the right to bare arms. Take the only way the common folk have to fight off oppression. I believe Gandhi even said "Among the many misdeeds of British rule upon India history will remember the deprivation of arms the blackest". Hitter did so, England did so in America and many other lands. Guns were the great equalizer of the people. It made a potato farmer could fight just as well as the Knights that might oppress him. As for your last quote. Yes the best was to win a fight it to do so with out fighting, it save lives, and yes this should be attempted. However, there comes many a time that it is not feasible. Then it becomes necessary to pick up your arms and fight.

[–]Lympwing2Proud Bromosexual 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Being from the UK, I pride myself on the fact that I've never touched a real gun. Most people here do aswell.

[–]Curvus 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

Being from Australia I used to hold that belief. Until I actually went shooting, it's fun as shit.

Still have no desire to own a gun but target shooting is the tits.

[–]Xsy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I enjoy shooting now and then, but after a couple shots, it's like "Alright, I poked holes in some things, now what."

[–]seeyanever[Wit not found] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Canadian here. I thought guns were dumb too until I went to a gun range in Israel. Amazing experience.

[–]thestrugglesreal 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seems like a weird thing to pride yourself on. I think guns can be a fun hobby, sharp shooting and the like are actually really cool. If you don't like it that's fine it just seems really really weird to be proud of not liking a certain hobby.

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

lol wtf no we dont