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

hide menu

blobbo    

no avatar Level 22 Comments: Peasant
Offline
Send mail to blobbo Block blobbo Invite blobbo to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:2/13/2011
Last Login:8/28/2014
Location:Italy
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Thumbs: 93 total,  227 ,  134
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 22 Comments: Peasant → Level 23 Comments: Peasant
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:124
FJ Points:72

latest user's comments

#294 - The point of GUN CONTROL is to CONTROL ( ******* C…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/17/2012 on It had to be said +5
#301 - blobbo (12/17/2012) [-]
Oh, and note that buying something illegally is a little bit more difficult that buying it at your local Walmart...
#693 - Thank you, my first lenguage isn't english and i like to learn… 12/16/2012 on Do you agree? 0
#629 - "I'm a psycho, i want to kill everybody around me and the…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/16/2012 on Do you agree? +5
#656 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
I hate to be that guy, but that isn't psychopath thinking. That's psychotic thinking,
#693 - blobbo (12/16/2012) [-]
Thank you, my first lenguage isn't english and i like to learn new things :)
#99 - - maybe it didn't ever happened before, but either it never ha… 09/13/2012 on Offical Story 0
#97 - This is what I like, a true dialogue! Still i have some doubts…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/13/2012 on Offical Story 0
User avatar #98 - arawan (09/13/2012) [-]
-How's it negligent? It's not exactly like planes were being flown into buildings all the time prior to 9/11. No hijackings had ever resulted in the plane being used as a weapon. You're looking at it through a post 9/11 lens. What did you think when you heard the first plane struck? Because where I was, they discussing a terrible accident.
-Correction, a Boeing 757 can't maintain that speed that close to the ground. It can be achieved during a dive though. And a dive doesn't have to be acutely sharp, gravity isn't picky. Also, I don't think the terrorist son of a bitch on joystick was too worried about maintaining control of the aircraft.
-The inside of the Pentagon maybe but you don't exactly need guard dogs to protect a solid wall of marble. Think about where the security cameras are in a building. Now think about where they are on the exterior. Basically just entrance and exact points right? Well, guess what? The exterior of the Pentagon isn't a state secret, there's no need to watch it all the time. And again, you're assuming there was knowledge of a need to based off of what you know now.
-It didn't vanish, I said it broke up. You didn't get the large pieces you're use to because of the high impact. Also, the plane crash basically straight down, so most of the pieces ended up burying themselves in the ground.
-Can you cite how you know there was any temperature difference in fires between the towers and WTC 7? I'm not saying there wasn't but how do you know that? Also, there was a huge gash down the side of the building caused by debris from the collapse of the towers. Besides all that though, if you let a building burn long enough, it will collapse eventually.

And I'm not asking you to believe in coincidences, just take a step back and take all the facts together. Like this: knife wound + dead body + bloody knife = murder. But if you focus on the bloody knife too much, you can come up with six or seven explanations for it that don't fit the bigger picture.
#99 - blobbo (09/13/2012) [-]
- maybe it didn't ever happened before, but either it never happened that an atomic bomb exploded on the USA ground... so we have to wait for it to happen? i think they should do something before... and anyway if a plane is hijacked probably i would think that is an accident too (even in that event there should be a standard procedure tough) but 4 planes hijacked toghether is quite more than a coincidence or an accident, don't you think?
- I know that a boeing can achieve that speed with a dive, but as we can se from the videos (or at least the little thing we can see) the plane arrives horizontally to the ground! therefore is not a dive and that movement for a boeing is aerodynamically impossible
- really? no cameras? so i could go near the pentagon and fire with a bazooka and they would not notice until the missle hits? i hope it's not so... as i already told even an average atm poin has better records of what happens outside
- the hole didn't look very large or deep, so i can't imagine where that plane could have disappeared (it doesn't look like it was buried in the ground)... anyway your explaination is still possible, i won't deny it
- twin towers: they collapsed due to the sturctural integrity damnaged by the plans and for the high temperatures (caused by the big quantities of fuel that was inside the planes) which made the steel almost melted; WT7: it didn't have either the structural damnage nor the boeing fuel, so what happened? could a normal fire make it collapse?
Maybe i'm too suspicious but i was born in romania (where we had ceaucescu, a dictator who controlled everything and made the population miserable using his lies) and i live in italy (one of the most corrupted nations of europe) so i always like to question the official propaganda, expecially when it gives the government so much power.
#67 - i laughed so hard on the last one... damn, i guess i'll see yo…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/12/2012 on Offensive 911 comp (Repost,... +1
User avatar #68 - domfiveofive (09/12/2012) [-]
me too man... fuck.
#68 - It seems that "the educated" had time to write a com…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/12/2012 on Offical Story 0
User avatar #69 - HarvietheDinkle (09/12/2012) [-]
not as much as writing paragraph after paragraph of why I think you're wrong. This is my last reply to you.

Just scroll down and look at the opposition arguments, please. Some already described it in great detail.

#65 - Is that supposed to be an answer? It's like saying "in Yo… 09/12/2012 on Offical Story -3
#62 - I only asked a few questions but i received no answer, only re…  [+] (10 new replies) 09/12/2012 on Offical Story -1
User avatar #91 - arawan (09/12/2012) [-]
Answers:
-wondering what the fuck was going on like everyone else. (No one realized it was an attack until after the second plane hit, even if they had the nearest fighters would have arrived at NYC just as the second tower was struck).
-Because it can? I don't even understand that question.
-Another question I don't understand. It's like asking why there isn't a clear video of me walking out to get the mail this afternoon. Why does there have to be clear video? I realize this was a very important point in history but that doesn't mean every second of it was video taped.
-The plane didn't disappear, it broke apart. Not surprising considering the force with which it struck the ground. The normal debris field you find in plane crashes didn't happen because most pilots are trying to save the plane not deliberately crash it.
-Because fires burnt in the building for close to 8 hours.

There, answers, didn't even thumb you down.
#97 - blobbo (09/13/2012) [-]
This is what I like, a true dialogue! Still i have some doubts:
- the aviation and the military don't have a plan for this kind of situations? I think it's very suspicious but if this is the truth then the heads of the defence should have been fired for neglicency
- a Boeing 757 (or any other big plane) can't fly at that speed that near to the ground, the air is just too dense (they fly at that speed when they are thousands feet high where the air is more thin) and there would be too much turbolences to maintain control even for an expert (the terrorist only did simulations, never flied something that big)
- the Pentagon is supposed to be one of the safest places in the world with hundreds of cameras that control everything in every moment, it seems strange that there isn't a single video of that (every ATM point is filmed better than that)
- i don't demand to see the seats or the glass of the windows, but how can the metallic structure of the plane vanish like that?
- it was a tremendous fire but it didn't have the heat of the ones in the twin towers (there wasn't the planes fuel) and the structure wasn't damnaged diracly by anything, still it collapled on itself like that
I don't know what really happen that day, i only know that i don't believe very much in coincidences and there are too many to be overseen.
Anyway 1 thumb up for you for being a lovely interlocutor, thanks.
User avatar #98 - arawan (09/13/2012) [-]
-How's it negligent? It's not exactly like planes were being flown into buildings all the time prior to 9/11. No hijackings had ever resulted in the plane being used as a weapon. You're looking at it through a post 9/11 lens. What did you think when you heard the first plane struck? Because where I was, they discussing a terrible accident.
-Correction, a Boeing 757 can't maintain that speed that close to the ground. It can be achieved during a dive though. And a dive doesn't have to be acutely sharp, gravity isn't picky. Also, I don't think the terrorist son of a bitch on joystick was too worried about maintaining control of the aircraft.
-The inside of the Pentagon maybe but you don't exactly need guard dogs to protect a solid wall of marble. Think about where the security cameras are in a building. Now think about where they are on the exterior. Basically just entrance and exact points right? Well, guess what? The exterior of the Pentagon isn't a state secret, there's no need to watch it all the time. And again, you're assuming there was knowledge of a need to based off of what you know now.
-It didn't vanish, I said it broke up. You didn't get the large pieces you're use to because of the high impact. Also, the plane crash basically straight down, so most of the pieces ended up burying themselves in the ground.
-Can you cite how you know there was any temperature difference in fires between the towers and WTC 7? I'm not saying there wasn't but how do you know that? Also, there was a huge gash down the side of the building caused by debris from the collapse of the towers. Besides all that though, if you let a building burn long enough, it will collapse eventually.

And I'm not asking you to believe in coincidences, just take a step back and take all the facts together. Like this: knife wound + dead body + bloody knife = murder. But if you focus on the bloody knife too much, you can come up with six or seven explanations for it that don't fit the bigger picture.
#99 - blobbo (09/13/2012) [-]
- maybe it didn't ever happened before, but either it never happened that an atomic bomb exploded on the USA ground... so we have to wait for it to happen? i think they should do something before... and anyway if a plane is hijacked probably i would think that is an accident too (even in that event there should be a standard procedure tough) but 4 planes hijacked toghether is quite more than a coincidence or an accident, don't you think?
- I know that a boeing can achieve that speed with a dive, but as we can se from the videos (or at least the little thing we can see) the plane arrives horizontally to the ground! therefore is not a dive and that movement for a boeing is aerodynamically impossible
- really? no cameras? so i could go near the pentagon and fire with a bazooka and they would not notice until the missle hits? i hope it's not so... as i already told even an average atm poin has better records of what happens outside
- the hole didn't look very large or deep, so i can't imagine where that plane could have disappeared (it doesn't look like it was buried in the ground)... anyway your explaination is still possible, i won't deny it
- twin towers: they collapsed due to the sturctural integrity damnaged by the plans and for the high temperatures (caused by the big quantities of fuel that was inside the planes) which made the steel almost melted; WT7: it didn't have either the structural damnage nor the boeing fuel, so what happened? could a normal fire make it collapse?
Maybe i'm too suspicious but i was born in romania (where we had ceaucescu, a dictator who controlled everything and made the population miserable using his lies) and i live in italy (one of the most corrupted nations of europe) so i always like to question the official propaganda, expecially when it gives the government so much power.
User avatar #64 - HarvietheDinkle (09/12/2012) [-]
the educated don't have time to explain it to everyone on this site, given the hundreds of conspiracy theorists on here.
#68 - blobbo (09/12/2012) [-]
It seems that "the educated" had time to write a comment wich wasn't an answer. What a waste of time, isn't it?
User avatar #69 - HarvietheDinkle (09/12/2012) [-]
not as much as writing paragraph after paragraph of why I think you're wrong. This is my last reply to you.

Just scroll down and look at the opposition arguments, please. Some already described it in great detail.

User avatar #63 - themastertroller (09/12/2012) [-]
your questions are stupid that's why...
#92 - Lambda (09/12/2012) [-]
Gee, for a second there, I almost forgot this was the internet. Thank you ever so much for reminding us all.
#65 - blobbo (09/12/2012) [-]
Is that supposed to be an answer? It's like saying "in Yo face" or "your mom", not very intelligent.
#56 - These are my questions: - what was the air force doing all…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/12/2012 on Offical Story -13
User avatar #85 - drewbridge (09/12/2012) [-]
1. An air force pilot considered ramming his fighter jet into one of the planes, but decided not to.

2. Flight 93 hit the ground at an incredible speed and nearly vertical, along with 18 TONS (over 36,000 pounds) of jet fuel. www. unitedflight93. com /
They're apprently still picking up pieces every year because the impact was so bad.

3. WTC 7
I was wondering about this, too. But then again, why the heck would they blow up WTC 7 specifically? It was taller than the surrounding buildings and had some fires, when the WTC collapsed, I'm going to guess the vibration was unfathomably powerful, it was damaged by other collapsed buildings, and was left to burn. Infact, firefighters cleared out the area beforehand because they knew it was. I just don't see any reason in the conspiracy against WTC7 in particular.
User avatar #80 - drewbridge (09/12/2012) [-]
1. Street lamps around the pentagon were knocked way the fuck out (it was flying that low)

I used to be kind of skeptical about the Pentagon too, then I watched this:
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&list=FLLe5-2ndrw4Zz1Ld0e1bHyg&index=78&feature=plpp_video

Very clear and easy to understand, and made me feel like a total dumbass for thinking otherwise.
#67 - Sammael (09/12/2012) [-]
http: // www . debunking911 . com/
#73 - Sammael (09/12/2012) [-]
http :// www . popularmechanics . com/technology/military/news/1230517
here is more about the planes.
User avatar #60 - themastertroller (09/12/2012) [-]
it's funny because you are misled
#62 - blobbo (09/12/2012) [-]
I only asked a few questions but i received no answer, only red thumbs.
User avatar #91 - arawan (09/12/2012) [-]
Answers:
-wondering what the fuck was going on like everyone else. (No one realized it was an attack until after the second plane hit, even if they had the nearest fighters would have arrived at NYC just as the second tower was struck).
-Because it can? I don't even understand that question.
-Another question I don't understand. It's like asking why there isn't a clear video of me walking out to get the mail this afternoon. Why does there have to be clear video? I realize this was a very important point in history but that doesn't mean every second of it was video taped.
-The plane didn't disappear, it broke apart. Not surprising considering the force with which it struck the ground. The normal debris field you find in plane crashes didn't happen because most pilots are trying to save the plane not deliberately crash it.
-Because fires burnt in the building for close to 8 hours.

There, answers, didn't even thumb you down.
#97 - blobbo (09/13/2012) [-]
This is what I like, a true dialogue! Still i have some doubts:
- the aviation and the military don't have a plan for this kind of situations? I think it's very suspicious but if this is the truth then the heads of the defence should have been fired for neglicency
- a Boeing 757 (or any other big plane) can't fly at that speed that near to the ground, the air is just too dense (they fly at that speed when they are thousands feet high where the air is more thin) and there would be too much turbolences to maintain control even for an expert (the terrorist only did simulations, never flied something that big)
- the Pentagon is supposed to be one of the safest places in the world with hundreds of cameras that control everything in every moment, it seems strange that there isn't a single video of that (every ATM point is filmed better than that)
- i don't demand to see the seats or the glass of the windows, but how can the metallic structure of the plane vanish like that?
- it was a tremendous fire but it didn't have the heat of the ones in the twin towers (there wasn't the planes fuel) and the structure wasn't damnaged diracly by anything, still it collapled on itself like that
I don't know what really happen that day, i only know that i don't believe very much in coincidences and there are too many to be overseen.
Anyway 1 thumb up for you for being a lovely interlocutor, thanks.
User avatar #98 - arawan (09/13/2012) [-]
-How's it negligent? It's not exactly like planes were being flown into buildings all the time prior to 9/11. No hijackings had ever resulted in the plane being used as a weapon. You're looking at it through a post 9/11 lens. What did you think when you heard the first plane struck? Because where I was, they discussing a terrible accident.
-Correction, a Boeing 757 can't maintain that speed that close to the ground. It can be achieved during a dive though. And a dive doesn't have to be acutely sharp, gravity isn't picky. Also, I don't think the terrorist son of a bitch on joystick was too worried about maintaining control of the aircraft.
-The inside of the Pentagon maybe but you don't exactly need guard dogs to protect a solid wall of marble. Think about where the security cameras are in a building. Now think about where they are on the exterior. Basically just entrance and exact points right? Well, guess what? The exterior of the Pentagon isn't a state secret, there's no need to watch it all the time. And again, you're assuming there was knowledge of a need to based off of what you know now.
-It didn't vanish, I said it broke up. You didn't get the large pieces you're use to because of the high impact. Also, the plane crash basically straight down, so most of the pieces ended up burying themselves in the ground.
-Can you cite how you know there was any temperature difference in fires between the towers and WTC 7? I'm not saying there wasn't but how do you know that? Also, there was a huge gash down the side of the building caused by debris from the collapse of the towers. Besides all that though, if you let a building burn long enough, it will collapse eventually.

And I'm not asking you to believe in coincidences, just take a step back and take all the facts together. Like this: knife wound + dead body + bloody knife = murder. But if you focus on the bloody knife too much, you can come up with six or seven explanations for it that don't fit the bigger picture.
#99 - blobbo (09/13/2012) [-]
- maybe it didn't ever happened before, but either it never happened that an atomic bomb exploded on the USA ground... so we have to wait for it to happen? i think they should do something before... and anyway if a plane is hijacked probably i would think that is an accident too (even in that event there should be a standard procedure tough) but 4 planes hijacked toghether is quite more than a coincidence or an accident, don't you think?
- I know that a boeing can achieve that speed with a dive, but as we can se from the videos (or at least the little thing we can see) the plane arrives horizontally to the ground! therefore is not a dive and that movement for a boeing is aerodynamically impossible
- really? no cameras? so i could go near the pentagon and fire with a bazooka and they would not notice until the missle hits? i hope it's not so... as i already told even an average atm poin has better records of what happens outside
- the hole didn't look very large or deep, so i can't imagine where that plane could have disappeared (it doesn't look like it was buried in the ground)... anyway your explaination is still possible, i won't deny it
- twin towers: they collapsed due to the sturctural integrity damnaged by the plans and for the high temperatures (caused by the big quantities of fuel that was inside the planes) which made the steel almost melted; WT7: it didn't have either the structural damnage nor the boeing fuel, so what happened? could a normal fire make it collapse?
Maybe i'm too suspicious but i was born in romania (where we had ceaucescu, a dictator who controlled everything and made the population miserable using his lies) and i live in italy (one of the most corrupted nations of europe) so i always like to question the official propaganda, expecially when it gives the government so much power.
User avatar #64 - HarvietheDinkle (09/12/2012) [-]
the educated don't have time to explain it to everyone on this site, given the hundreds of conspiracy theorists on here.
#68 - blobbo (09/12/2012) [-]
It seems that "the educated" had time to write a comment wich wasn't an answer. What a waste of time, isn't it?
User avatar #69 - HarvietheDinkle (09/12/2012) [-]
not as much as writing paragraph after paragraph of why I think you're wrong. This is my last reply to you.

Just scroll down and look at the opposition arguments, please. Some already described it in great detail.

User avatar #63 - themastertroller (09/12/2012) [-]
your questions are stupid that's why...
#92 - Lambda (09/12/2012) [-]
Gee, for a second there, I almost forgot this was the internet. Thank you ever so much for reminding us all.
#65 - blobbo (09/12/2012) [-]
Is that supposed to be an answer? It's like saying "in Yo face" or "your mom", not very intelligent.
#827 - I'd be more worried if a psycopath would go around with a gun … 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#826 - A gun for self defense for me is perfectly fine. I just don't … 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#820 - No, i'm italian. 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#819 - Oh, and" gun CONTROL" doesn't mean " NO gun AT … 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#818 - Still if a person with granades will probably use them if he g…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
User avatar #823 - summin (09/08/2012) [-]
If people wants to hurt other they will do it and nothing will stop them, if no firearms available then they will use anything to kill, almost every object can be turned into weapon: improvised bombs, knives, axes, clubs, sharpened sticks, hell you can even kill with bare hands.
#827 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
I'd be more worried if a psycopath would go around with a gun that with a knike, and I don't think that trying to keep fireweapons and mentally instable people to be an illogical request. The law would have to CONTROL who is suitable to possess fireweapons and who is not. For example:
- Greg is a man who never committed a violent crime. He will take a psychological test: if he's found to be suitable he will be able to take a training on how to use a gun and THEN buy his gun for personal protection.
- John is a man who never committed a crime like Greg but from his psychological test results that he is too anxious and careless to take care of a gun. Therefore he will not be able to buy his gun (he can retake the test if he wants)
- Philip instead is a man with a history of violent crimes perpetuated in time: he will not be able to buy a gun.
This is my thought, surely the law could be changed (i'm not an expert of sociology) but surely a REGULAMENTATION is needed.
#817 - My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot … 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#816 - Well, I tought Jason Bourne existed only in movie but if you'r…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/08/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#824 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
Ok if this isn't a serious troll post please reflect on what it is you are doing in life. I DID NOT SAY I COULD EASILY DO IT. I simply said, if you look, that I would like to have the means to do it (a gun) whereas I may or may not have the actual ability to do it. I would recommend actually reading the full comment, and not just skimming.
#826 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
A gun for self defense for me is perfectly fine. I just don't comprehend why should someone need something like granades and I don't want that people with mental problems or with an history of violence to be able to legally buy guns. Therefore REGULAMENTATION and CONTROL are needed. It's called gun-CONTROL law, not gun-NOATALL law.
#255 - HAHAHaAHAHAHAH :D I want to see how well you can defend yourse…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#808 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
please refer to comment 146, by insertdumbnamehere, before insulting me. I never said I was good enough to take down a government, but if someone were to invade my home (I used the government sending officials as an example) I would rather have an arsenal that gives me the means to defend myself, but having the know-how to do so I would need to get on my own.
#816 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
Well, I tought Jason Bourne existed only in movie but if you're confident in yourself i'm sure you could evenly match 10 trained soldiers by yourself!
By the way i think that not anybody who can buy granades has the training to use them so it would be safer to make laws for regulamentation.
#824 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
Ok if this isn't a serious troll post please reflect on what it is you are doing in life. I DID NOT SAY I COULD EASILY DO IT. I simply said, if you look, that I would like to have the means to do it (a gun) whereas I may or may not have the actual ability to do it. I would recommend actually reading the full comment, and not just skimming.
#826 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
A gun for self defense for me is perfectly fine. I just don't comprehend why should someone need something like granades and I don't want that people with mental problems or with an history of violence to be able to legally buy guns. Therefore REGULAMENTATION and CONTROL are needed. It's called gun-CONTROL law, not gun-NOATALL law.
#250 - "Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to inte…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#344 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a missile. You have taken what I said and tried to use it to say I want to do things that are not humanly possible by myself (like fire a missile at someone). If throwing a grenade is something I can do to make sure any of my family members or myself don't end up dead, I will do it in a heartbeat. Although I admit its not likely I will be in a situation to need a grenade.

However this has turned from a debate to you being cynical to people who disagree with you so there's not any point in continuing it. It looks like your plan if anything ever upsets the balance of the perfect world your living in where there are no wars or break ins or riots is to bend over and take it up the ass. For the record a government soldier dies just as quick to a bullet as you or I do.
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
#245 - As I have already said Dude can buy the weapon on the black ma…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
User avatar #247 - lilnuggetbob (09/07/2012) [-]
Actually it would be cheaper, but lower quality.
#819 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
Oh, and" gun CONTROL" doesn't mean " NO gun AT ALL FOREVER". It means to CONTROL who is mentally suitable to carry a killing tool and who is not.
#159 - Yes, to protect your family you HAVE to own always weapons wit…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... -3
#167 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
No you just need to do everything you can to protect what you need to. Is this a new concept or something?
#250 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
"Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller."
This is your words. And I said you always need more destructive weapons... Tell me how is that any different!!
P.S. I don't think i'll ever have to protect my family with granades or missles, maybe where u live is different!
#344 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a missile. You have taken what I said and tried to use it to say I want to do things that are not humanly possible by myself (like fire a missile at someone). If throwing a grenade is something I can do to make sure any of my family members or myself don't end up dead, I will do it in a heartbeat. Although I admit its not likely I will be in a situation to need a grenade.

However this has turned from a debate to you being cynical to people who disagree with you so there's not any point in continuing it. It looks like your plan if anything ever upsets the balance of the perfect world your living in where there are no wars or break ins or riots is to bend over and take it up the ass. For the record a government soldier dies just as quick to a bullet as you or I do.
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
#154 - Thanks Frodo! :') 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... -2
#153 - "Gun-control" doesn't mean "No guns at all for …  [+] (7 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
User avatar #158 - hypnotoad stare (09/07/2012) [-]
Gun "control" will not solve anything, IF someone wants a gun that bad, they WILL get one. Making it harder for a normal citizen to get one will only make things worse. That's just my opinion. Not trying to start a fight or anything.
#163 - newall (09/07/2012) [-]
if you aren't holding a gun, you're a lot less likely to get shot by someone that is.

people that are victims of gun crime are quite often shop owners that try to shoot back.

i'm not anti gun, i just think you should need a license to own one, and the licensing should be far more stringent.
User avatar #172 - hypnotoad stare (09/07/2012) [-]
I agree with you a little bit there newall, but not to the extent that a good bit of people against firearms believe. It should be something like, you go get a mental screening and a background check. But not a full out license, just something that says "Hey, i'm not a psychopath." But theres one big problem with making a license required. A decent amount people who go on these crazy rampages are not people with a record, or a mental illness, sometimes people just lose it. The human brain is a delicate thing. Some times when some one loses there marbles, it just kind of happens. But I do see your logic.
#185 - anonymous (09/07/2012) [-]
sooooooooooooooooooo there should be no guns then, by your own logic
User avatar #190 - hypnotoad stare (09/07/2012) [-]
No not at all, My point here being mainly just, you can't stop violence, no matter what you do, violence will still exist. It goes back to primal instinct. People kill each other, if you take away their rock, they will just beat each other to death with their fists. But good question anon.
User avatar #176 - needsmohoes (09/07/2012) [-]
Don't see why you're getting thumbed down. you're not raving or anything and you're talking logically. I will thumb you back to health!
User avatar #181 - hypnotoad stare (09/07/2012) [-]
That's how funnyjunk works. Opinions against the crowd usually get thumbed down. It's okay though, it doesn't bother me any. Just part of the circle of life on funnyjunk.
#150 - So everybody should have the right to own missles, right? And …  [+] (4 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... -2
#155 - summin (09/07/2012) [-]
No individual has the right to unlawfully harm the lives.
#818 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
Still if a person with granades will probably use them if he goes on a rampage, even if he hasn't the right to do so.
User avatar #823 - summin (09/08/2012) [-]
If people wants to hurt other they will do it and nothing will stop them, if no firearms available then they will use anything to kill, almost every object can be turned into weapon: improvised bombs, knives, axes, clubs, sharpened sticks, hell you can even kill with bare hands.
#827 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
I'd be more worried if a psycopath would go around with a gun that with a knike, and I don't think that trying to keep fireweapons and mentally instable people to be an illogical request. The law would have to CONTROL who is suitable to possess fireweapons and who is not. For example:
- Greg is a man who never committed a violent crime. He will take a psychological test: if he's found to be suitable he will be able to take a training on how to use a gun and THEN buy his gun for personal protection.
- John is a man who never committed a crime like Greg but from his psychological test results that he is too anxious and careless to take care of a gun. Therefore he will not be able to buy his gun (he can retake the test if he wants)
- Philip instead is a man with a history of violent crimes perpetuated in time: he will not be able to buy a gun.
This is my thought, surely the law could be changed (i'm not an expert of sociology) but surely a REGULAMENTATION is needed.
#138 - Flawless logic! Only problem is that the government has also p…  [+] (12 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... -2
#209 - themanwhoknocks (09/07/2012) [-]
Well, lets say the government is this super bad steal you up from the night type of thing ok? Now lets say they want to steal me up or my child up from the night. They will not nuke me, and only me. that is impractical and flawed logic, they will however send a person, and if that person were to use force, I would want to make sure i could protect me and my own.
#255 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
HAHAHaAHAHAHAH :D I want to see how well you can defend yourself against the government soldier!!!! Are you some kind of Rambo?!?
#808 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
please refer to comment 146, by insertdumbnamehere, before insulting me. I never said I was good enough to take down a government, but if someone were to invade my home (I used the government sending officials as an example) I would rather have an arsenal that gives me the means to defend myself, but having the know-how to do so I would need to get on my own.
#816 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
Well, I tought Jason Bourne existed only in movie but if you're confident in yourself i'm sure you could evenly match 10 trained soldiers by yourself!
By the way i think that not anybody who can buy granades has the training to use them so it would be safer to make laws for regulamentation.
#824 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
Ok if this isn't a serious troll post please reflect on what it is you are doing in life. I DID NOT SAY I COULD EASILY DO IT. I simply said, if you look, that I would like to have the means to do it (a gun) whereas I may or may not have the actual ability to do it. I would recommend actually reading the full comment, and not just skimming.
#826 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
A gun for self defense for me is perfectly fine. I just don't comprehend why should someone need something like granades and I don't want that people with mental problems or with an history of violence to be able to legally buy guns. Therefore REGULAMENTATION and CONTROL are needed. It's called gun-CONTROL law, not gun-NOATALL law.
#146 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
You can only protect yourself and your loved ones to the best of your ability. Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller.
#159 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
Yes, to protect your family you HAVE to own always weapons with more destructive power than anybody else!! GO AMERICA!!!
#167 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
No you just need to do everything you can to protect what you need to. Is this a new concept or something?
#250 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
"Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller."
This is your words. And I said you always need more destructive weapons... Tell me how is that any different!!
P.S. I don't think i'll ever have to protect my family with granades or missles, maybe where u live is different!
#344 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a missile. You have taken what I said and tried to use it to say I want to do things that are not humanly possible by myself (like fire a missile at someone). If throwing a grenade is something I can do to make sure any of my family members or myself don't end up dead, I will do it in a heartbeat. Although I admit its not likely I will be in a situation to need a grenade.

However this has turned from a debate to you being cynical to people who disagree with you so there's not any point in continuing it. It looks like your plan if anything ever upsets the balance of the perfect world your living in where there are no wars or break ins or riots is to bend over and take it up the ass. For the record a government soldier dies just as quick to a bullet as you or I do.
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
[ 101 Total ]

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)