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

hide menu

Monoge    

Rank #808 on Subscribers
Monoge Avatar Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to Monoge Block Monoge Invite Monoge to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/15/2009
Last Login:5/13/2013
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 13338 total,  16387 ,  3049
Comment Thumbs: 2901 total,  3530 ,  629
Content Level Progress: 33.8% (338/1000)
Level 213 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 1% (1/100)
Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:99
Content Views:563764
Times Content Favorited:714 times
Total Comments Made:1375
FJ Points:16331
Favorite Tags: funny (13) | lol (10) | OC (10) | comic (8) | lab (3) | Prank (3) | smile (3) | Video (3) | Comic Strip (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 93222
    Thumbs Up 2821 Thumbs Down 370 Total: +2451
    Comments: 242
    Favorites: 163
    Uploaded: 12/04/12
    Pugs. Pugs everywhere. Pugs. Pugs everywhere.
  • Views: 85514
    Thumbs Up 2581 Thumbs Down 318 Total: +2263
    Comments: 322
    Favorites: 105
    Uploaded: 12/01/12
    No Title Ideas No Title Ideas
  • Views: 44209
    Thumbs Up 1802 Thumbs Down 251 Total: +1551
    Comments: 47
    Favorites: 26
    Uploaded: 05/30/12
    You Can Starve (Fixed) You Can Starve (Fixed)
  • Views: 68508
    Thumbs Up 1590 Thumbs Down 380 Total: +1210
    Comments: 80
    Favorites: 120
    Uploaded: 10/09/12
    We Be Trippin' Badgers, Yo We Be Trippin' Badgers, Yo
  • Views: 49233
    Thumbs Up 1370 Thumbs Down 295 Total: +1075
    Comments: 70
    Favorites: 48
    Uploaded: 06/14/12
    Owning a Pet Owning a Pet
  • Views: 56453
    Thumbs Up 1336 Thumbs Down 294 Total: +1042
    Comments: 72
    Favorites: 67
    Uploaded: 09/28/12
    Owning a Pet 2 Owning a Pet 2
1 2 3 4 5 > [ 27 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

latest user's comments

#908 - As a professional freelance writer and reporter, I wouldn't pu…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/26/2013 on Scary Shit 0
#909 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
I didn't post a Wikipedia source, arbitrarily. I believe the sources to be more reliable than your cited publications. The press is easily manipulated, as well, let alone biased and quick to write a story.

Organized or not, effective weapons are necessary for a militia, and a militia is necessary to keep the government in check. The practical application of "high powered" weapons is in use every day without ever firing a shot. If you take that away, you have the inevitable Oligarchy that no longer has trouble executing orders independent of the will of the people.

You said yourself, these shootings may not have even been done with rifles, and they certainly weren't necessary. So called "high powered" weapons are rarely used in crimes. They are all but irrelevant in reducing firearm crime. Banning them will affect the militia more than crime. Not to mention the fact that firearm killings are extremely rare, as previously stated, and not worth sacrificing your necessary rights. So, don't tell me, "no practical application other than killing mass numbers of people," again, because that's a bunch of malanky!

P.S. The Columbine shooting occurred in the middle of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". A gun ban will only increase violence as it is statistically shown to do, but the effect will be minor compared to the actualization of disarming the people.
#910 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
When I mentioned the Wikipedia sources, I was referring to the citations for the passage, which is a U.K. government publication from the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
#905 - We aren't massacring each other? That must be how we got our r…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/26/2013 on Scary Shit 0
#906 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Really? You won't acknowledge what I told you, but you're going to tell me I don't learn well, read definitions to me, and tell me to read your articles on how gun control reduces gun violence. Fine.

The points I found most interesting were in your first source:
* "More guns tend to mean more homicide"
* "States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence"
Unfortunately, I couldn't trace the sources to actual data, they didn't elaborate on how they arrived at their data, and they seemed a bit sketchy, comparatively.

The statistics I'm referring to are commonly cited and imply correlation and causation between gun bans and increased firearm crime. This following Wikipedia page should be a reliable source. It's interesting how it implies long-term benefits to gun control in the description. No doubt, more misinformation, but in the "Firearms crime" section, particularly the 4th paragraph, it shows a drastic increase in firearm crime rate in the U.K. following the gun ban, and though the rate has decreased overtime, it is still much higher than it used to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms crime

That said, it doesn't even matter, because even if it was proved that gun laws can decrease firearm crime, it's not worth sacrificing the militia. Your own sources show only 2.75 people killed by firearms out of 100,000 in the U.S. Only one in 6000 guns actually kill someone here. We haven't even determined, yet, what actually happened at Sandy Hook as stories are mixed and a lot of information is being kept private. Several reports even indicate that the shooter was armed with only a Glock and a Sig Sauer semi-automatic handgun. Don't be in such a rush to sign away our necessary rights just because a few kids died. I am dead fucking serious.
User avatar #908 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
As a professional freelance writer and reporter, I wouldn't put too much faith in Wikipedia articles since they are easily manipulated. My articles were chosen because they are written by associated press members, overseen by publications with editorial standards I trust as a recurring employee of theirs.

As for my previous statement, it came out harsher than I had intended. You have my apologies for that.

Now, what happened in Sandy Hook is indeed sad, but I have purposefully neglected to mention it at all because I agree with you--there is a lot of conflicting information. In the long run, the situation there, no matter how sad, has not colored my opinion on gun control in the slightest. I have felt this way and will continue to feel this way despite the number of dead or alive school children. Also, do to conflicting reports, it is difficult to tell if he used any weapons I would consider ones worth of banning, further making it irrelevant.

I can respect your opinion on the militia, though I disagree. I believe that we are too unorganized and senseless as a whole to be trusted with such powerful weapons. They are being used on our civilians right now, not a greater opposing force. If the intense rate of gun violence continues as it has been, eventually the majority of citizens and lawmakers will be on the side of complete gun control and we will have all civilian held munitions taken away. Why is it so damn hard to give up high powered weapons with no currently practical application in order to preserve future lives and future freedoms?

Hell, even if we reinstated the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" that expired in 2004, it would be a step in the right direction. It's not -taking all your guns-. It's just making it harder to get the insanely overpowered ones with NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION OTHER THAN KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

For the record, I am just as serious.
#909 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
I didn't post a Wikipedia source, arbitrarily. I believe the sources to be more reliable than your cited publications. The press is easily manipulated, as well, let alone biased and quick to write a story.

Organized or not, effective weapons are necessary for a militia, and a militia is necessary to keep the government in check. The practical application of "high powered" weapons is in use every day without ever firing a shot. If you take that away, you have the inevitable Oligarchy that no longer has trouble executing orders independent of the will of the people.

You said yourself, these shootings may not have even been done with rifles, and they certainly weren't necessary. So called "high powered" weapons are rarely used in crimes. They are all but irrelevant in reducing firearm crime. Banning them will affect the militia more than crime. Not to mention the fact that firearm killings are extremely rare, as previously stated, and not worth sacrificing your necessary rights. So, don't tell me, "no practical application other than killing mass numbers of people," again, because that's a bunch of malanky!

P.S. The Columbine shooting occurred in the middle of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". A gun ban will only increase violence as it is statistically shown to do, but the effect will be minor compared to the actualization of disarming the people.
#910 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
When I mentioned the Wikipedia sources, I was referring to the citations for the passage, which is a U.K. government publication from the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
#894 - *Sigh.* It's a folly to assume someone is acting out of emotio…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/26/2013 on Scary Shit 0
#900 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
"I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them"
Without a militia, that is no longer necessary.

"Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once."
So, to protect us from our government, we do need guns just not good ones? A gun ban (especially a progressive one) will hurt a militia more than a public shooter who has proven that he doesn't need a rifle at all.

"...H bomb..." "something that horrific" "massacring our own countrymen"
Of course you're being emotional. You watch the news and think we're massacring our own country, but very few people are killed by firearms.

I just can't educate everyone. Please, educate yourselves before you walk us all into a cage.
User avatar #905 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
We aren't massacring each other? That must be how we got our reputation as a mellow, peaceful country.

As for my use of terms, I still remain stoically unemotional during this conversation. But you've proven twice that you easily make assumptions about that sort of thing, so it's a moot point now. 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that noise.

Here you go, do a little more research yourself:

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Precedent Definition: Noun
An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Read the information linked above and then that definition. Understand that there is a correlation (though not completely across the board) between gun control and less gun violence in the long run.
#906 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Really? You won't acknowledge what I told you, but you're going to tell me I don't learn well, read definitions to me, and tell me to read your articles on how gun control reduces gun violence. Fine.

The points I found most interesting were in your first source:
* "More guns tend to mean more homicide"
* "States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence"
Unfortunately, I couldn't trace the sources to actual data, they didn't elaborate on how they arrived at their data, and they seemed a bit sketchy, comparatively.

The statistics I'm referring to are commonly cited and imply correlation and causation between gun bans and increased firearm crime. This following Wikipedia page should be a reliable source. It's interesting how it implies long-term benefits to gun control in the description. No doubt, more misinformation, but in the "Firearms crime" section, particularly the 4th paragraph, it shows a drastic increase in firearm crime rate in the U.K. following the gun ban, and though the rate has decreased overtime, it is still much higher than it used to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms crime

That said, it doesn't even matter, because even if it was proved that gun laws can decrease firearm crime, it's not worth sacrificing the militia. Your own sources show only 2.75 people killed by firearms out of 100,000 in the U.S. Only one in 6000 guns actually kill someone here. We haven't even determined, yet, what actually happened at Sandy Hook as stories are mixed and a lot of information is being kept private. Several reports even indicate that the shooter was armed with only a Glock and a Sig Sauer semi-automatic handgun. Don't be in such a rush to sign away our necessary rights just because a few kids died. I am dead fucking serious.
User avatar #908 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
As a professional freelance writer and reporter, I wouldn't put too much faith in Wikipedia articles since they are easily manipulated. My articles were chosen because they are written by associated press members, overseen by publications with editorial standards I trust as a recurring employee of theirs.

As for my previous statement, it came out harsher than I had intended. You have my apologies for that.

Now, what happened in Sandy Hook is indeed sad, but I have purposefully neglected to mention it at all because I agree with you--there is a lot of conflicting information. In the long run, the situation there, no matter how sad, has not colored my opinion on gun control in the slightest. I have felt this way and will continue to feel this way despite the number of dead or alive school children. Also, do to conflicting reports, it is difficult to tell if he used any weapons I would consider ones worth of banning, further making it irrelevant.

I can respect your opinion on the militia, though I disagree. I believe that we are too unorganized and senseless as a whole to be trusted with such powerful weapons. They are being used on our civilians right now, not a greater opposing force. If the intense rate of gun violence continues as it has been, eventually the majority of citizens and lawmakers will be on the side of complete gun control and we will have all civilian held munitions taken away. Why is it so damn hard to give up high powered weapons with no currently practical application in order to preserve future lives and future freedoms?

Hell, even if we reinstated the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" that expired in 2004, it would be a step in the right direction. It's not -taking all your guns-. It's just making it harder to get the insanely overpowered ones with NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION OTHER THAN KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

For the record, I am just as serious.
#909 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
I didn't post a Wikipedia source, arbitrarily. I believe the sources to be more reliable than your cited publications. The press is easily manipulated, as well, let alone biased and quick to write a story.

Organized or not, effective weapons are necessary for a militia, and a militia is necessary to keep the government in check. The practical application of "high powered" weapons is in use every day without ever firing a shot. If you take that away, you have the inevitable Oligarchy that no longer has trouble executing orders independent of the will of the people.

You said yourself, these shootings may not have even been done with rifles, and they certainly weren't necessary. So called "high powered" weapons are rarely used in crimes. They are all but irrelevant in reducing firearm crime. Banning them will affect the militia more than crime. Not to mention the fact that firearm killings are extremely rare, as previously stated, and not worth sacrificing your necessary rights. So, don't tell me, "no practical application other than killing mass numbers of people," again, because that's a bunch of malanky!

P.S. The Columbine shooting occurred in the middle of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". A gun ban will only increase violence as it is statistically shown to do, but the effect will be minor compared to the actualization of disarming the people.
#910 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
When I mentioned the Wikipedia sources, I was referring to the citations for the passage, which is a U.K. government publication from the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
#72 - HAH 01/25/2013 on rape 0
#877 - There is always going to be some immediate backlash, and with …  [+] (8 new replies) 01/25/2013 on Scary Shit 0
#893 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Educate yourself on why the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms paramount. Real arms, not watered down rifles. Educate yourself on the history of governments disarming citizens, and their consistent agendas to increase power. Look into the facts of what's happening and stop reacting emotionally to these emotional political moves.
User avatar #894 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
*Sigh.* It's a folly to assume someone is acting out of emotion off the bat, especially when communing through a poor medium of expression such as text. But moving on--



I am painfully aware of why our founding fathers initiated the right for citizens to bear arms. Aside from being an avid fan of history--as well as sociology--I commonly get bombarded with pro-gun speeches and agendas as I spent an extended period of time in the south, or NRA Country as many refer to it.


I understand and respect our founding father's wishes. I also respect the right of sane, safe individuals to carry weapons. But I believe there is no practical application for certain weapons, whether it's hunting or home defense. Some weapons are made for one purpose, and that is to kill large numbers of people in a relatively small amount of time. I do not believe our founding fathers envisioned something so devastatingly violent when they put that amendment in the constitution. Compared to the muskets they used back during the forging of our nation, an M4 Carbine probably looks more like an H bomb in comparison than an actual gun. It's really impractical to think that the founding fathers would want an average citizen to wield something that horrific--especially with the current state of the nation (being without a common enemy, we are massacring our own countrymen, which is something I don't think any sane person wants).


Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once. It just isn't necessary if you consider the superior numbers of the US civilians to the numbers of the US military--though I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them. Many soldiers have proven that already in instances such as the Occupy Movement.

#900 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
"I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them"
Without a militia, that is no longer necessary.

"Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once."
So, to protect us from our government, we do need guns just not good ones? A gun ban (especially a progressive one) will hurt a militia more than a public shooter who has proven that he doesn't need a rifle at all.

"...H bomb..." "something that horrific" "massacring our own countrymen"
Of course you're being emotional. You watch the news and think we're massacring our own country, but very few people are killed by firearms.

I just can't educate everyone. Please, educate yourselves before you walk us all into a cage.
User avatar #905 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
We aren't massacring each other? That must be how we got our reputation as a mellow, peaceful country.

As for my use of terms, I still remain stoically unemotional during this conversation. But you've proven twice that you easily make assumptions about that sort of thing, so it's a moot point now. 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that noise.

Here you go, do a little more research yourself:

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Precedent Definition: Noun
An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Read the information linked above and then that definition. Understand that there is a correlation (though not completely across the board) between gun control and less gun violence in the long run.
#906 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Really? You won't acknowledge what I told you, but you're going to tell me I don't learn well, read definitions to me, and tell me to read your articles on how gun control reduces gun violence. Fine.

The points I found most interesting were in your first source:
* "More guns tend to mean more homicide"
* "States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence"
Unfortunately, I couldn't trace the sources to actual data, they didn't elaborate on how they arrived at their data, and they seemed a bit sketchy, comparatively.

The statistics I'm referring to are commonly cited and imply correlation and causation between gun bans and increased firearm crime. This following Wikipedia page should be a reliable source. It's interesting how it implies long-term benefits to gun control in the description. No doubt, more misinformation, but in the "Firearms crime" section, particularly the 4th paragraph, it shows a drastic increase in firearm crime rate in the U.K. following the gun ban, and though the rate has decreased overtime, it is still much higher than it used to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms crime

That said, it doesn't even matter, because even if it was proved that gun laws can decrease firearm crime, it's not worth sacrificing the militia. Your own sources show only 2.75 people killed by firearms out of 100,000 in the U.S. Only one in 6000 guns actually kill someone here. We haven't even determined, yet, what actually happened at Sandy Hook as stories are mixed and a lot of information is being kept private. Several reports even indicate that the shooter was armed with only a Glock and a Sig Sauer semi-automatic handgun. Don't be in such a rush to sign away our necessary rights just because a few kids died. I am dead fucking serious.
User avatar #908 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
As a professional freelance writer and reporter, I wouldn't put too much faith in Wikipedia articles since they are easily manipulated. My articles were chosen because they are written by associated press members, overseen by publications with editorial standards I trust as a recurring employee of theirs.

As for my previous statement, it came out harsher than I had intended. You have my apologies for that.

Now, what happened in Sandy Hook is indeed sad, but I have purposefully neglected to mention it at all because I agree with you--there is a lot of conflicting information. In the long run, the situation there, no matter how sad, has not colored my opinion on gun control in the slightest. I have felt this way and will continue to feel this way despite the number of dead or alive school children. Also, do to conflicting reports, it is difficult to tell if he used any weapons I would consider ones worth of banning, further making it irrelevant.

I can respect your opinion on the militia, though I disagree. I believe that we are too unorganized and senseless as a whole to be trusted with such powerful weapons. They are being used on our civilians right now, not a greater opposing force. If the intense rate of gun violence continues as it has been, eventually the majority of citizens and lawmakers will be on the side of complete gun control and we will have all civilian held munitions taken away. Why is it so damn hard to give up high powered weapons with no currently practical application in order to preserve future lives and future freedoms?

Hell, even if we reinstated the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" that expired in 2004, it would be a step in the right direction. It's not -taking all your guns-. It's just making it harder to get the insanely overpowered ones with NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION OTHER THAN KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

For the record, I am just as serious.
#909 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
I didn't post a Wikipedia source, arbitrarily. I believe the sources to be more reliable than your cited publications. The press is easily manipulated, as well, let alone biased and quick to write a story.

Organized or not, effective weapons are necessary for a militia, and a militia is necessary to keep the government in check. The practical application of "high powered" weapons is in use every day without ever firing a shot. If you take that away, you have the inevitable Oligarchy that no longer has trouble executing orders independent of the will of the people.

You said yourself, these shootings may not have even been done with rifles, and they certainly weren't necessary. So called "high powered" weapons are rarely used in crimes. They are all but irrelevant in reducing firearm crime. Banning them will affect the militia more than crime. Not to mention the fact that firearm killings are extremely rare, as previously stated, and not worth sacrificing your necessary rights. So, don't tell me, "no practical application other than killing mass numbers of people," again, because that's a bunch of malanky!

P.S. The Columbine shooting occurred in the middle of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". A gun ban will only increase violence as it is statistically shown to do, but the effect will be minor compared to the actualization of disarming the people.
#910 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
When I mentioned the Wikipedia sources, I was referring to the citations for the passage, which is a U.K. government publication from the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
#677 - I hate to be 'that person,' but the stats you're showing are o…  [+] (10 new replies) 01/25/2013 on Scary Shit +4
#698 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
The statistics still show a correlation between the gun ban and increased crime rate in the U.K. After the Connecticut shooting, no one disregarded gun control as a possible step in the right direction, but the fact is it's not the right step.
User avatar #877 - Monoge (01/25/2013) [-]
There is always going to be some immediate backlash, and with the already horrifically high gun violence in the states and the much larger population, it will be something to behold. I do believe that handing out a stiffer sentence for owning unlicensed guns should be instated as well as banning overpowered weapons with no practical application.

However, unlike the UK, most of our citizens are against banning guns as strictly as the UK has done, even if it did decrease the gun violence over there drastically. Without public support, it would cause an unheard of backlash. I believe guns within the acceptable power range for hunting and home defense should stay in rotation (especially since a lot of people in rural locations really rely on their ability to hunt for food in the winter), but you don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer.
#893 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Educate yourself on why the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms paramount. Real arms, not watered down rifles. Educate yourself on the history of governments disarming citizens, and their consistent agendas to increase power. Look into the facts of what's happening and stop reacting emotionally to these emotional political moves.
User avatar #894 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
*Sigh.* It's a folly to assume someone is acting out of emotion off the bat, especially when communing through a poor medium of expression such as text. But moving on--



I am painfully aware of why our founding fathers initiated the right for citizens to bear arms. Aside from being an avid fan of history--as well as sociology--I commonly get bombarded with pro-gun speeches and agendas as I spent an extended period of time in the south, or NRA Country as many refer to it.


I understand and respect our founding father's wishes. I also respect the right of sane, safe individuals to carry weapons. But I believe there is no practical application for certain weapons, whether it's hunting or home defense. Some weapons are made for one purpose, and that is to kill large numbers of people in a relatively small amount of time. I do not believe our founding fathers envisioned something so devastatingly violent when they put that amendment in the constitution. Compared to the muskets they used back during the forging of our nation, an M4 Carbine probably looks more like an H bomb in comparison than an actual gun. It's really impractical to think that the founding fathers would want an average citizen to wield something that horrific--especially with the current state of the nation (being without a common enemy, we are massacring our own countrymen, which is something I don't think any sane person wants).


Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once. It just isn't necessary if you consider the superior numbers of the US civilians to the numbers of the US military--though I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them. Many soldiers have proven that already in instances such as the Occupy Movement.

#900 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
"I doubt many soldiers would turn against civilians to oppress them"
Without a militia, that is no longer necessary.

"Now, if you're suggesting that we need guns for protection from our own government, I am not suggesting we surrender all our weapons (which, if you read my previous post, I clearly stated), but the ridiculously powerful ones meant for killing several people at once."
So, to protect us from our government, we do need guns just not good ones? A gun ban (especially a progressive one) will hurt a militia more than a public shooter who has proven that he doesn't need a rifle at all.

"...H bomb..." "something that horrific" "massacring our own countrymen"
Of course you're being emotional. You watch the news and think we're massacring our own country, but very few people are killed by firearms.

I just can't educate everyone. Please, educate yourselves before you walk us all into a cage.
User avatar #905 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
We aren't massacring each other? That must be how we got our reputation as a mellow, peaceful country.

As for my use of terms, I still remain stoically unemotional during this conversation. But you've proven twice that you easily make assumptions about that sort of thing, so it's a moot point now. 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that noise.

Here you go, do a little more research yourself:

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Precedent Definition: Noun
An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Read the information linked above and then that definition. Understand that there is a correlation (though not completely across the board) between gun control and less gun violence in the long run.
#906 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
Really? You won't acknowledge what I told you, but you're going to tell me I don't learn well, read definitions to me, and tell me to read your articles on how gun control reduces gun violence. Fine.

The points I found most interesting were in your first source:
* "More guns tend to mean more homicide"
* "States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence"
Unfortunately, I couldn't trace the sources to actual data, they didn't elaborate on how they arrived at their data, and they seemed a bit sketchy, comparatively.

The statistics I'm referring to are commonly cited and imply correlation and causation between gun bans and increased firearm crime. This following Wikipedia page should be a reliable source. It's interesting how it implies long-term benefits to gun control in the description. No doubt, more misinformation, but in the "Firearms crime" section, particularly the 4th paragraph, it shows a drastic increase in firearm crime rate in the U.K. following the gun ban, and though the rate has decreased overtime, it is still much higher than it used to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms crime

That said, it doesn't even matter, because even if it was proved that gun laws can decrease firearm crime, it's not worth sacrificing the militia. Your own sources show only 2.75 people killed by firearms out of 100,000 in the U.S. Only one in 6000 guns actually kill someone here. We haven't even determined, yet, what actually happened at Sandy Hook as stories are mixed and a lot of information is being kept private. Several reports even indicate that the shooter was armed with only a Glock and a Sig Sauer semi-automatic handgun. Don't be in such a rush to sign away our necessary rights just because a few kids died. I am dead fucking serious.
User avatar #908 - Monoge (01/26/2013) [-]
As a professional freelance writer and reporter, I wouldn't put too much faith in Wikipedia articles since they are easily manipulated. My articles were chosen because they are written by associated press members, overseen by publications with editorial standards I trust as a recurring employee of theirs.

As for my previous statement, it came out harsher than I had intended. You have my apologies for that.

Now, what happened in Sandy Hook is indeed sad, but I have purposefully neglected to mention it at all because I agree with you--there is a lot of conflicting information. In the long run, the situation there, no matter how sad, has not colored my opinion on gun control in the slightest. I have felt this way and will continue to feel this way despite the number of dead or alive school children. Also, do to conflicting reports, it is difficult to tell if he used any weapons I would consider ones worth of banning, further making it irrelevant.

I can respect your opinion on the militia, though I disagree. I believe that we are too unorganized and senseless as a whole to be trusted with such powerful weapons. They are being used on our civilians right now, not a greater opposing force. If the intense rate of gun violence continues as it has been, eventually the majority of citizens and lawmakers will be on the side of complete gun control and we will have all civilian held munitions taken away. Why is it so damn hard to give up high powered weapons with no currently practical application in order to preserve future lives and future freedoms?

Hell, even if we reinstated the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" that expired in 2004, it would be a step in the right direction. It's not -taking all your guns-. It's just making it harder to get the insanely overpowered ones with NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION OTHER THAN KILLING MASS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

For the record, I am just as serious.
#909 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
I didn't post a Wikipedia source, arbitrarily. I believe the sources to be more reliable than your cited publications. The press is easily manipulated, as well, let alone biased and quick to write a story.

Organized or not, effective weapons are necessary for a militia, and a militia is necessary to keep the government in check. The practical application of "high powered" weapons is in use every day without ever firing a shot. If you take that away, you have the inevitable Oligarchy that no longer has trouble executing orders independent of the will of the people.

You said yourself, these shootings may not have even been done with rifles, and they certainly weren't necessary. So called "high powered" weapons are rarely used in crimes. They are all but irrelevant in reducing firearm crime. Banning them will affect the militia more than crime. Not to mention the fact that firearm killings are extremely rare, as previously stated, and not worth sacrificing your necessary rights. So, don't tell me, "no practical application other than killing mass numbers of people," again, because that's a bunch of malanky!

P.S. The Columbine shooting occurred in the middle of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". A gun ban will only increase violence as it is statistically shown to do, but the effect will be minor compared to the actualization of disarming the people.
#910 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
When I mentioned the Wikipedia sources, I was referring to the citations for the passage, which is a U.K. government publication from the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
#52 - You. Play this: While you watch your .gif. 12/28/2012 on what the cutest littl----oh +1
#89 - He just got a swirly  [+] (1 new reply) 12/22/2012 on watch out we got a badass... +2
User avatar #92 - JENNAY (12/22/2012) [-]
OH NO! HIS NEWPORTS ARE GOING TO BE SOAKED!
#5 - Fizzgig :D:D:D:D I just watched that movie yesterday. I love t…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/17/2012 on i do not share 0
User avatar #6 - deamonbabe (12/17/2012) [-]
the dog in the gif looks just like him! I love it!
#66 - Reevaluate.  [+] (5 new replies) 12/12/2012 on Theres snow in my ass +8
User avatar #108 - ericzxvc (12/12/2012) [-]
It's the cheerleader effect, not saying that the whole cold isn't hot thing, but in that picture none of the girls are really attractive if you single them out.
User avatar #90 - sexwithyourwife (12/12/2012) [-]
do any of these girls happen to be porn stars?
User avatar #75 - bchewey (12/12/2012) [-]
except they are not hot. The only one remotely hot is the second one, but she has no tits.
User avatar #86 - TheFallenAngel (12/12/2012) [-]
If, from what funnyjunk insinuates, a lot of people do not have girlfriends on this site, do you really need to judge a girl on her boob size?
#100 - incognitoguido (12/12/2012) [-]
I have to agree, I am single and I'm not even that shallow

user's channels

Join Subscribe ponytime

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#28 - stripey (05/01/2014) [-]
Yo!   
   
You plan on continuing Lab 34? I liked the comic a lot, was going through my favorites when I remembered all about it   
   
got a deviant art or something?   
   
pic unrelated
Yo!

You plan on continuing Lab 34? I liked the comic a lot, was going through my favorites when I remembered all about it

got a deviant art or something?

pic unrelated
#19 - diddymonster (10/17/2012) [-]
i like your comics
i like your comics
#20 to #19 - Monoge (10/18/2012) [-]
Well I like you :D
Well I like you :D
User avatar #21 to #20 - diddymonster (10/18/2012) [-]
i'm also your 100th subscriber :3
User avatar #15 - screwyouman (10/09/2012) [-]
I LOVE YOU.
User avatar #13 - stripey (09/29/2012) [-]
nice OC
User avatar #14 to #13 - Monoge (09/29/2012) [-]
Thanks, man.
#11 - MOFOJOYO (08/15/2012) [-]
Hey was just wondering, I love Lab 34, and was wondering if you were planning on continuing work on it.

I NEED MY LAB 34 FIX LADY!!!!!
User avatar #12 to #11 - Monoge (08/15/2012) [-]
Hahaha. I have something in the works right now. Now that I know someone is missing it, though, I will pick up the pace :D
#7 - secrectcitygirl (05/27/2012) [-]
Where did you make your comic strip? Excuse me for my poor English.
User avatar #8 to #16 - Monoge (05/27/2012) [-]
Not a problem my friend. I made the comic in Photoshop CS 5 :)
User avatar #6 - lemonaid (05/26/2012) [-]
your drawing style reminds me of invader zim o.O
User avatar #9 to #15 - Monoge (05/27/2012) [-]
Awesome =o I adore Invader Zim. hopefully I deviate from that style enough to make my work a little more original.
User avatar #10 to #18 - lemonaid (05/27/2012) [-]
yeah you do don't worry, I think it's the style of eyes that you draw that remind me of it :P
User avatar #4 - flylow (03/07/2012) [-]
*brohoof*
User avatar #5 to #13 - Monoge (03/08/2012) [-]
My first brohoof :D *Brohoof*
User avatar #1 - Savos Mok (10/03/2010) [-]
And when the wind blows, the dumbass will fall.
And down will come retard, squeegee and all!
User avatar #2 to #1 - Monoge (10/03/2010) [-]
X3
User avatar #3 to #2 - Savos Mok (10/03/2010) [-]
You're welcome, Monoge
 Friends (0)