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

hide menu

bobbysnobby    

Rank #3694 on Comments
no avatar Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to bobbysnobby Block bobbysnobby Invite bobbysnobby to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/20/2010
Last Login:9/02/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3694
Highest Content Rank:#25533
Highest Comment Rank:#2215
Content Thumbs: 16 total,  21 ,  5
Comment Thumbs: 3321 total,  4396 ,  1075
Content Level Progress: 33.89% (20/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 52% (52/100)
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:4956
Total Comments Made:895
FJ Points:3050

latest user's comments

#66 - Is the last of us referencing the Chiss? from the starwars uni…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/25/2014 on more cross overs 0
User avatar #70 - lostdagame (02/25/2014) [-]
The Last of Us and Adventure time. Marcy and Simon (more commonly known as the Ice King) are replacing the usual main characters
#93 - The american governmental system is so designed to make change… 02/25/2014 on obama-lin-duh 0
#92 - It is the job of the police, the swat, the national/coastal gu…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/25/2014 on obama-lin-duh 0
User avatar #94 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Leave your cultural baggage at home, there is no need for it here. Saying that guns cannot be owned for the enjoyment of the owner due to their possible danger is like saying a really nice car cannot be owned by someone because of the inherent dangerous ability of it. Sure, people buy crazy expensive cars that are designed to exceed the speed limit tenfold, but we allow people to buy them anyway because that is what free society is all about.

It is not the duty of the people to self-protect? I may as well go to my local clinic and apply for an anal expansion tonight so it won't hurt so much when I am raped tomorrow! The US supreme court has ruled that it is NOT and NEVER has been the duty of the police to protect you. The police have no duty to defend your life if it is at risk. That is fact, debate it all you want but it is set in stone.

The point of the second amendment is for the possibility that the military forgoes its duty to protect the citizenship. When the people have their backs against the wall, it should be their right to defend themselves against the powers that be. The fact that you believe that people should be powerless to stop a government from abusing them is ridiculous and you should feel ashamed.
#95 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
The police uphold the law, there are laws against harming civilians thus the police do protect civilians. What they were talking about is its not the job of the police to be body guards, or to act against self interest or in the interests of the state to protect individuals. I dont know what kind of wild west you think we live in but in the long run your far better off giving muggers the money on your person than you are putting up any kind of resistance. If they are desperate enough to risk jail time for the cash you have on your person they are very desperate indeed.

There is no amount of munitions or firearms that would make the gun population of the united states every pose a real threat to the government militarily. Cultural responses are far more powerful movers than uprising. Which is something the US population does all of the time, strikes boycotts people stop doing necessary services to think that the best resort to change the government when our back is up against the wall is with our own rifles shows such a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the military and the cultural and historical motivations for change I can barely take the implications your making seriously.

You know what scares me more than the government? Individuals. Individuals who are much harder to find accountable much harder to find much harder to reason with. Governments are big, extremely large and its hard for them to do much without it attracting a lot of attention. Individuals account for a lot of deaths in the US. People drive drunk, people hurt other people directly, people make mistakes and people get greedy. I dont trust individuals any more than government and so I would rather the people who have to answer to the UN and other major world powers be the ones with those particular guns, and not the people who think Obama was born in the middle east or that the world is less 10,000 years old. Of the two one is a major world power and one is fickle and unaccountable.
User avatar #96 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
As I said, you can debate it all you want but the US Supreme Court has no ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to defend your life if doing so doesn't directly contribute to capturing a criminal. If a criminal has put you in a situation where the authorities can take a risk by saving you, or instead pursue him, the police will always pursue him. I don't believe that we live in any kind of Wild West, I'm just not naive enough to think that bad things don't happen to good people.

The point of arming the populace is not to OVERCOME the military. Only a fool would even entertain the thought that the unorganized people could overthrow the armed forces of any country.

The point is that the US armed forces are comprised of Americans who I believe would feel very conflicted about trying to overthrow their own countrymen. It could still happen, as Nazi germany was defended and ordered by german military. It is the combination of this conflicted view as well as every soldier's nightmare that the next house they breach could be serving a 12-gauge dinner that prevents a regime from taking place. Its like someone asking you to enslave your own family or friends. You're already unlikely to accept at any price, but combine that with a deadly ending and the thought would be gone from your mind altogether.

Your fear of the individual is about as Orwellian as it gets. Do you also believe that freedom is slavery? It is the responsibility of every person to embrace the power which we can achieve. Bad things do happen in this world, but there is an idea of a greater good that can come of it. What makes you think that the situation in Kiev could never come to American shores? I don't see any current "political timebomb" that's going to go off and trigger some massive civil unrest, but I don't dismiss the idea of it happening in the future.

#90 - When the gun parties do that and hide behind the letter of the… 02/25/2014 on obama-lin-duh +1
#87 - You mistake dislike for fear. I am also much more aware of fir…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/25/2014 on obama-lin-duh 0
User avatar #91 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Why does it matter so much to you if they are trying to replicate military hardware or make guns that look like military hardware? Do you associate the military with public shootings of schoolchildren and the commitment of horrid atrocities to the American people? When I hear about a classroom full of corpses, I don't think "damn, if only that gun wasn't so military-like...".

Secondly, what do you say to the people who find enjoyment out of firing "military" firearms without having to join the military? I mentioned that automatics are a thrill ride because their are people who enjoy that thrill when they go to the range. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the recoil that only automatics can deliver. You should take it seriously because it is a pursuit of happiness that people should have the right to. Furthermore, cops and SWAT teams face the same threats that the American citizen face (potentially). Cops and SWAT arrive at a scene AFTER a situation has begun and roll out with their AR-15s when the situation gets dire. Why are the people involved before the cops arrive when evidently these "useless" firearms are what are required to get the job done?

I don't know why a cool looking and product-moving gun is dangerous to you, it confounds me...

I guess I should repeat what I said at the start since I kind of dragged us off topic pretty early on. I am Canadian and soon to be a firearms owner. I am happy that my country institutes background checks and licenses for all firearms, and that there are some limitations in place. Am I peeved a little about the no access to automatics? A little, but I can understand why some people have a distrust of them. I hope the ban is repealed, but I'm not going to take action against it because that gives the wrong message. The reason I want the US to have the freedom they do is because they have a huge military, crazy illegal gun market, multiculturalism combined with massive global resentment, and a spying government.
#92 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
It is the job of the police, the swat, the national/coastal guard, and the military to protect the Citizenship. It is not the job of the citizens to self protect. The constitution allows for you to carry a weapon and to use it in self protection and protection of property and family. The does not mean that the citizens get to play police, that is vigilante justice and is illegal.

I dont like the fact that guns are being sold for cool factor. Thats not the reason we have guns, thats not the reason to own guns. This plays back to your shooting of automatic weapons as a joy ride, if I were you I wouldnt bring that up in a discussion about gun laws it really hurts your case. The point of firearms is not to find enjoyment about firing them and dont bring up the right to pursue happiness it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I am not afraid that some how a wood stocked, bolt action hunting .30-6 is any less lethal to my little niece than a military grade fully automatic ACR. I understand these things. This is the 4th time you have brought up the function vs the form. The fat that the guns are being marketed as civilian versions of military weapons is worrying because the purpose of buying those is just that to have a gun that looks like a military weapon. If thats not worrying to you I dont know what else to say, military weapons are for killing people, and while i respect their craft and the need for them in the military thats not the items of cultural baggage I want in civilian hands.

Finally the laws have loosened in recent years, we are allowed to own Assault weapons in the US which we didnt used to be allowed to do, so despite laws being less restrictive the gun proponents continue to push for more and more ground, this will not continue and until the gun activists show them selves to be at all reasonable and are willing to discuss rather than demand this will only end poorly.
User avatar #94 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Leave your cultural baggage at home, there is no need for it here. Saying that guns cannot be owned for the enjoyment of the owner due to their possible danger is like saying a really nice car cannot be owned by someone because of the inherent dangerous ability of it. Sure, people buy crazy expensive cars that are designed to exceed the speed limit tenfold, but we allow people to buy them anyway because that is what free society is all about.

It is not the duty of the people to self-protect? I may as well go to my local clinic and apply for an anal expansion tonight so it won't hurt so much when I am raped tomorrow! The US supreme court has ruled that it is NOT and NEVER has been the duty of the police to protect you. The police have no duty to defend your life if it is at risk. That is fact, debate it all you want but it is set in stone.

The point of the second amendment is for the possibility that the military forgoes its duty to protect the citizenship. When the people have their backs against the wall, it should be their right to defend themselves against the powers that be. The fact that you believe that people should be powerless to stop a government from abusing them is ridiculous and you should feel ashamed.
#95 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
The police uphold the law, there are laws against harming civilians thus the police do protect civilians. What they were talking about is its not the job of the police to be body guards, or to act against self interest or in the interests of the state to protect individuals. I dont know what kind of wild west you think we live in but in the long run your far better off giving muggers the money on your person than you are putting up any kind of resistance. If they are desperate enough to risk jail time for the cash you have on your person they are very desperate indeed.

There is no amount of munitions or firearms that would make the gun population of the united states every pose a real threat to the government militarily. Cultural responses are far more powerful movers than uprising. Which is something the US population does all of the time, strikes boycotts people stop doing necessary services to think that the best resort to change the government when our back is up against the wall is with our own rifles shows such a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the military and the cultural and historical motivations for change I can barely take the implications your making seriously.

You know what scares me more than the government? Individuals. Individuals who are much harder to find accountable much harder to find much harder to reason with. Governments are big, extremely large and its hard for them to do much without it attracting a lot of attention. Individuals account for a lot of deaths in the US. People drive drunk, people hurt other people directly, people make mistakes and people get greedy. I dont trust individuals any more than government and so I would rather the people who have to answer to the UN and other major world powers be the ones with those particular guns, and not the people who think Obama was born in the middle east or that the world is less 10,000 years old. Of the two one is a major world power and one is fickle and unaccountable.
User avatar #96 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
As I said, you can debate it all you want but the US Supreme Court has no ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to defend your life if doing so doesn't directly contribute to capturing a criminal. If a criminal has put you in a situation where the authorities can take a risk by saving you, or instead pursue him, the police will always pursue him. I don't believe that we live in any kind of Wild West, I'm just not naive enough to think that bad things don't happen to good people.

The point of arming the populace is not to OVERCOME the military. Only a fool would even entertain the thought that the unorganized people could overthrow the armed forces of any country.

The point is that the US armed forces are comprised of Americans who I believe would feel very conflicted about trying to overthrow their own countrymen. It could still happen, as Nazi germany was defended and ordered by german military. It is the combination of this conflicted view as well as every soldier's nightmare that the next house they breach could be serving a 12-gauge dinner that prevents a regime from taking place. Its like someone asking you to enslave your own family or friends. You're already unlikely to accept at any price, but combine that with a deadly ending and the thought would be gone from your mind altogether.

Your fear of the individual is about as Orwellian as it gets. Do you also believe that freedom is slavery? It is the responsibility of every person to embrace the power which we can achieve. Bad things do happen in this world, but there is an idea of a greater good that can come of it. What makes you think that the situation in Kiev could never come to American shores? I don't see any current "political timebomb" that's going to go off and trigger some massive civil unrest, but I don't dismiss the idea of it happening in the future.

#90 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
When the gun parties do that and hide behind the letter of the law, it looks extremely badly, no reason there is push back.

We outlaw automatic firing weapons for civilians what its its automatic and has a fire rate of a bullet a minute is that outlawed? What it if its simi automatic and fires at 1600 rounds a minute? Is that legal? Those dances are not productive its a law clearly aimed at restricting fire rates in civilian weapons its not like the government gives a shit about the actual mechanism.

These dialogues are so unproductive because the pro gun parties keep pushing the line forward and are willing to give up no ground without a fight. The less ground that is willing to be given up the harder the push back will eventually be. To be frank if the general population will not cede any ground about the topic and will continue to produce guns to work around the existing laws I fully promote the push back.

There are reasonable discussions to be had about what civilians should be permitted to carry If you disagree and this all is fair in ballistic firearms so be it. We wont find any common ground and I will assume you are dishonest because if you think a nations security is directly proportional to the number of citizens who carry weapons I will bring up statistics to contradict it.

Firearms are part of america. Its part of our national identity. Its in the constitution. I hope that they continue to be all those things, but there really needs to be a intellectual conversation about this, other than knee jerk reaction to any restriction. The role of government is not only to give stability and services to the society but also to make hard choices for citizens there is always a level of freedom which is given up when you enter into a society, always and I dont see many states that exist long in anarchy so we better all come up to the table willing to give up something.
#51 - My bringing up chemicals weapons, and landmines was not to con…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/25/2014 on obama-lin-duh +1
User avatar #82 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
The AR-15 is the basis for many hunting rifles today, and AR-platform hunting is now a very common thing in both Canada and the US. Calling them military rifles is foolish since they have use for many things outside of the military and are commonly used for both fun and for for sport.

Just because a gun is black and has all kinds of switches does not make it unnecessary or necessarily "military". Fearing a gun because of the way it looks is retarded and you should feel retarded for thinking this way.

Your mention of chemical weapons and landmines is still just as stupid, as you have taken my quote without an ounce of thought. I was referencing firearms, and you made the assumption that I meant in any regard. By that logic, anyone could say I think people should have nuclear weapons, drones and tanks, which makes them a fucking retard for inferring so. Use a little bit of thought when you read the rest of this response this time.

You can make slippery slope arguments all you want such as candlestick killers all you want, but it just shows how infantile you are. You can defend hunting rifles because of their practicality? Why not the AR-15? They are both often semi-automatic, they fire centrefire cartridges, and can be used for hunting or shooting up schools. Implying that one only has use in the latter is ridiculous. I don't care how much you support the right to carry, it doesn't make you immune to making a stupid argument.

Lastly, why do you have such a hard-on for the bump-stock? Its to make the shooter more comfortable when firing their rifle, and is a tech that has been used in a similar fashion in shotguns for the past decade for the purpose of duck-hunting.
#87 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
You mistake dislike for fear. I am also much more aware of firearms than you care to grant. I am not bothered by colour or "all kids of switches" I'm bothered because its clearly trying to replicate military hardware to sell to civilians. If not in function then in identity. Its the same reason why in the US you only need to be 18 to own a rife and you need to be 25 to own a handgun, its because one is concealable and has a lot of cultural baggage. You only speak towards function which shows a gross lack of understanding Guns are tools, tools which carry their own weight in culture and meaning.

Your comment about "people shouldn't be limited" cannot be defended, I took it to an extreme to illiterate that you cannot, if you then backtrack and say "you know what i mean" it means your comment should have been "People should be limited, just not in this and that way" which really is the same thing im saying.

My argument is the fallowing. The republican Gun loving right side is doing its self no favors when they seem so resistant to undergo any level of mediation in gun laws. You brought up that firing full automatics are "a thrill ride", how can I take that seriously? Im republican and yet having any conversation about gun control I necessarily come out looking like a hippy liberal in contrast because im moderate. We donot need to make civilian weapons out of military weapons, its a line gun lovers should enter a discussion about. Why do we model the guns after military guns? Forget function, why do we make them look like military guns? Because its cool, and it sells product. That is dangerous to me, we do not sell weapons because they are cool, and its not an amendment "There shall be no law preventing the electorate from looking like stone cold bad asses"

As for the fixation on bump stocks, it was only legalized in the last year and a half or so for the AR 15 and it allows it to fire at near automatic levels its a work around the letter of the gun laws.
User avatar #91 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Why does it matter so much to you if they are trying to replicate military hardware or make guns that look like military hardware? Do you associate the military with public shootings of schoolchildren and the commitment of horrid atrocities to the American people? When I hear about a classroom full of corpses, I don't think "damn, if only that gun wasn't so military-like...".

Secondly, what do you say to the people who find enjoyment out of firing "military" firearms without having to join the military? I mentioned that automatics are a thrill ride because their are people who enjoy that thrill when they go to the range. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the recoil that only automatics can deliver. You should take it seriously because it is a pursuit of happiness that people should have the right to. Furthermore, cops and SWAT teams face the same threats that the American citizen face (potentially). Cops and SWAT arrive at a scene AFTER a situation has begun and roll out with their AR-15s when the situation gets dire. Why are the people involved before the cops arrive when evidently these "useless" firearms are what are required to get the job done?

I don't know why a cool looking and product-moving gun is dangerous to you, it confounds me...

I guess I should repeat what I said at the start since I kind of dragged us off topic pretty early on. I am Canadian and soon to be a firearms owner. I am happy that my country institutes background checks and licenses for all firearms, and that there are some limitations in place. Am I peeved a little about the no access to automatics? A little, but I can understand why some people have a distrust of them. I hope the ban is repealed, but I'm not going to take action against it because that gives the wrong message. The reason I want the US to have the freedom they do is because they have a huge military, crazy illegal gun market, multiculturalism combined with massive global resentment, and a spying government.
#92 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
It is the job of the police, the swat, the national/coastal guard, and the military to protect the Citizenship. It is not the job of the citizens to self protect. The constitution allows for you to carry a weapon and to use it in self protection and protection of property and family. The does not mean that the citizens get to play police, that is vigilante justice and is illegal.

I dont like the fact that guns are being sold for cool factor. Thats not the reason we have guns, thats not the reason to own guns. This plays back to your shooting of automatic weapons as a joy ride, if I were you I wouldnt bring that up in a discussion about gun laws it really hurts your case. The point of firearms is not to find enjoyment about firing them and dont bring up the right to pursue happiness it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I am not afraid that some how a wood stocked, bolt action hunting .30-6 is any less lethal to my little niece than a military grade fully automatic ACR. I understand these things. This is the 4th time you have brought up the function vs the form. The fat that the guns are being marketed as civilian versions of military weapons is worrying because the purpose of buying those is just that to have a gun that looks like a military weapon. If thats not worrying to you I dont know what else to say, military weapons are for killing people, and while i respect their craft and the need for them in the military thats not the items of cultural baggage I want in civilian hands.

Finally the laws have loosened in recent years, we are allowed to own Assault weapons in the US which we didnt used to be allowed to do, so despite laws being less restrictive the gun proponents continue to push for more and more ground, this will not continue and until the gun activists show them selves to be at all reasonable and are willing to discuss rather than demand this will only end poorly.
User avatar #94 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Leave your cultural baggage at home, there is no need for it here. Saying that guns cannot be owned for the enjoyment of the owner due to their possible danger is like saying a really nice car cannot be owned by someone because of the inherent dangerous ability of it. Sure, people buy crazy expensive cars that are designed to exceed the speed limit tenfold, but we allow people to buy them anyway because that is what free society is all about.

It is not the duty of the people to self-protect? I may as well go to my local clinic and apply for an anal expansion tonight so it won't hurt so much when I am raped tomorrow! The US supreme court has ruled that it is NOT and NEVER has been the duty of the police to protect you. The police have no duty to defend your life if it is at risk. That is fact, debate it all you want but it is set in stone.

The point of the second amendment is for the possibility that the military forgoes its duty to protect the citizenship. When the people have their backs against the wall, it should be their right to defend themselves against the powers that be. The fact that you believe that people should be powerless to stop a government from abusing them is ridiculous and you should feel ashamed.
#95 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
The police uphold the law, there are laws against harming civilians thus the police do protect civilians. What they were talking about is its not the job of the police to be body guards, or to act against self interest or in the interests of the state to protect individuals. I dont know what kind of wild west you think we live in but in the long run your far better off giving muggers the money on your person than you are putting up any kind of resistance. If they are desperate enough to risk jail time for the cash you have on your person they are very desperate indeed.

There is no amount of munitions or firearms that would make the gun population of the united states every pose a real threat to the government militarily. Cultural responses are far more powerful movers than uprising. Which is something the US population does all of the time, strikes boycotts people stop doing necessary services to think that the best resort to change the government when our back is up against the wall is with our own rifles shows such a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the military and the cultural and historical motivations for change I can barely take the implications your making seriously.

You know what scares me more than the government? Individuals. Individuals who are much harder to find accountable much harder to find much harder to reason with. Governments are big, extremely large and its hard for them to do much without it attracting a lot of attention. Individuals account for a lot of deaths in the US. People drive drunk, people hurt other people directly, people make mistakes and people get greedy. I dont trust individuals any more than government and so I would rather the people who have to answer to the UN and other major world powers be the ones with those particular guns, and not the people who think Obama was born in the middle east or that the world is less 10,000 years old. Of the two one is a major world power and one is fickle and unaccountable.
User avatar #96 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
As I said, you can debate it all you want but the US Supreme Court has no ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to defend your life if doing so doesn't directly contribute to capturing a criminal. If a criminal has put you in a situation where the authorities can take a risk by saving you, or instead pursue him, the police will always pursue him. I don't believe that we live in any kind of Wild West, I'm just not naive enough to think that bad things don't happen to good people.

The point of arming the populace is not to OVERCOME the military. Only a fool would even entertain the thought that the unorganized people could overthrow the armed forces of any country.

The point is that the US armed forces are comprised of Americans who I believe would feel very conflicted about trying to overthrow their own countrymen. It could still happen, as Nazi germany was defended and ordered by german military. It is the combination of this conflicted view as well as every soldier's nightmare that the next house they breach could be serving a 12-gauge dinner that prevents a regime from taking place. Its like someone asking you to enslave your own family or friends. You're already unlikely to accept at any price, but combine that with a deadly ending and the thought would be gone from your mind altogether.

Your fear of the individual is about as Orwellian as it gets. Do you also believe that freedom is slavery? It is the responsibility of every person to embrace the power which we can achieve. Bad things do happen in this world, but there is an idea of a greater good that can come of it. What makes you think that the situation in Kiev could never come to American shores? I don't see any current "political timebomb" that's going to go off and trigger some massive civil unrest, but I don't dismiss the idea of it happening in the future.

#90 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
When the gun parties do that and hide behind the letter of the law, it looks extremely badly, no reason there is push back.

We outlaw automatic firing weapons for civilians what its its automatic and has a fire rate of a bullet a minute is that outlawed? What it if its simi automatic and fires at 1600 rounds a minute? Is that legal? Those dances are not productive its a law clearly aimed at restricting fire rates in civilian weapons its not like the government gives a shit about the actual mechanism.

These dialogues are so unproductive because the pro gun parties keep pushing the line forward and are willing to give up no ground without a fight. The less ground that is willing to be given up the harder the push back will eventually be. To be frank if the general population will not cede any ground about the topic and will continue to produce guns to work around the existing laws I fully promote the push back.

There are reasonable discussions to be had about what civilians should be permitted to carry If you disagree and this all is fair in ballistic firearms so be it. We wont find any common ground and I will assume you are dishonest because if you think a nations security is directly proportional to the number of citizens who carry weapons I will bring up statistics to contradict it.

Firearms are part of america. Its part of our national identity. Its in the constitution. I hope that they continue to be all those things, but there really needs to be a intellectual conversation about this, other than knee jerk reaction to any restriction. The role of government is not only to give stability and services to the society but also to make hard choices for citizens there is always a level of freedom which is given up when you enter into a society, always and I dont see many states that exist long in anarchy so we better all come up to the table willing to give up something.
#45 - Impression matters. If its for protection the styling doesnt m…  [+] (10 new replies) 02/24/2014 on obama-lin-duh +1
User avatar #47 - hilariouswaste (02/24/2014) [-]
Once again, the use of the term "higher grade" weapons shows me that you are not very familiar with firearms in general and that you buy into the hysteria that guns with composite stocks and a handle ahead of the back sight make them "military killing machines". Furthermore your assertion that I believe land mines and chemical weapons are okay tells me that you are obviously a bit naive to embrace this issue. Land mines and chems are indiscriminate weapons that kill anything that come across them and cannot be controlled on a one-to-one target basis. Firearms are just inanimate objects that are directed by the people who own them. Some people want to own automatics just for the hell of it. Ever fired a gun in full automatic? Its a thrill ride and a half, trust me.

It should be any American's right to buy a gun that fires any amount of bullets per minute. Who gives a shit? You think that someone with a slower-firing firearm wouldn't be able to pull off the same kind of carnage? Adam Lanza would have been able to do the same thing he did at Sandy Hook with a one-shot turkey shotgun if he wanted, since the school policy nowadays is just to kettle children.

The hell with excessive force, if someone were to bust into a home and threaten a family, they deserve the full extent of that family's wrath.

Don't blame gun culture, because guns are not the problem. The reason new and improved guns come out every year is because they are awesome pieces of tech that provide a ton of entertainment and can be useful at the same time. Military surplus is a collection item, just like fancy cars and nice golf clubs. Just because you don't understand other people's fascination doesn't mean you should deny them the things that make them happy.
#51 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
My bringing up chemicals weapons, and landmines was not to contrast them against the firearms but to highlight the absurd nature of your comment "People should never be limited in the extent to which they are allowed to defend themselves." Im glad we agree that it is absurd.

Your invoking a slippery slope argument which can be parodied with little effort. "Guns people sure, but candle sticks can also kill people, why dont we outlaw candle sticks then?" The simplest answer is that a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere on what civilians can be permitted to own and use. The debate of where that line should be is subjective and debatable. I would fallow up that debate with an argument from practicality and defend-ability. If someone shoots a bunch of cops as what happened in California with hunting rifles, sure it happens and its extremely unfortunate but we can defend the firearms they own, they are practical in many contexts. If someone shoots up a school or a public place with a bump stock AR-15 it is much harder to defend the gun's practical applications outside of those situations which would dramatically hurt gun ownership. I support peoples right to carry, I also highly disagree with the constant attempts to militarize civilian weapons. In their stylings, in their function, in the culture around the guns. Civilians weapons are for Protection, for sport, and for hunting. Military weapons (with only moderate acceptions) are for lethality and efficiency. The kind of weapons many gun advocates want are weapons we dont even issue the Police, its why in the states we have the SWAT (specal weapons assault teams) they are permitted to use military grade weapons, not civilians not police.

"Don't blame gun culture, because guns are not the problem." Must be a parody or a joke, because Guns dont have a culture as you said they are inanimate, Gun culture is the culture of PEOPLE about guns. Thus blaming Gun Culture is blaming people not guns.
User avatar #82 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
The AR-15 is the basis for many hunting rifles today, and AR-platform hunting is now a very common thing in both Canada and the US. Calling them military rifles is foolish since they have use for many things outside of the military and are commonly used for both fun and for for sport.

Just because a gun is black and has all kinds of switches does not make it unnecessary or necessarily "military". Fearing a gun because of the way it looks is retarded and you should feel retarded for thinking this way.

Your mention of chemical weapons and landmines is still just as stupid, as you have taken my quote without an ounce of thought. I was referencing firearms, and you made the assumption that I meant in any regard. By that logic, anyone could say I think people should have nuclear weapons, drones and tanks, which makes them a fucking retard for inferring so. Use a little bit of thought when you read the rest of this response this time.

You can make slippery slope arguments all you want such as candlestick killers all you want, but it just shows how infantile you are. You can defend hunting rifles because of their practicality? Why not the AR-15? They are both often semi-automatic, they fire centrefire cartridges, and can be used for hunting or shooting up schools. Implying that one only has use in the latter is ridiculous. I don't care how much you support the right to carry, it doesn't make you immune to making a stupid argument.

Lastly, why do you have such a hard-on for the bump-stock? Its to make the shooter more comfortable when firing their rifle, and is a tech that has been used in a similar fashion in shotguns for the past decade for the purpose of duck-hunting.
#87 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
You mistake dislike for fear. I am also much more aware of firearms than you care to grant. I am not bothered by colour or "all kids of switches" I'm bothered because its clearly trying to replicate military hardware to sell to civilians. If not in function then in identity. Its the same reason why in the US you only need to be 18 to own a rife and you need to be 25 to own a handgun, its because one is concealable and has a lot of cultural baggage. You only speak towards function which shows a gross lack of understanding Guns are tools, tools which carry their own weight in culture and meaning.

Your comment about "people shouldn't be limited" cannot be defended, I took it to an extreme to illiterate that you cannot, if you then backtrack and say "you know what i mean" it means your comment should have been "People should be limited, just not in this and that way" which really is the same thing im saying.

My argument is the fallowing. The republican Gun loving right side is doing its self no favors when they seem so resistant to undergo any level of mediation in gun laws. You brought up that firing full automatics are "a thrill ride", how can I take that seriously? Im republican and yet having any conversation about gun control I necessarily come out looking like a hippy liberal in contrast because im moderate. We donot need to make civilian weapons out of military weapons, its a line gun lovers should enter a discussion about. Why do we model the guns after military guns? Forget function, why do we make them look like military guns? Because its cool, and it sells product. That is dangerous to me, we do not sell weapons because they are cool, and its not an amendment "There shall be no law preventing the electorate from looking like stone cold bad asses"

As for the fixation on bump stocks, it was only legalized in the last year and a half or so for the AR 15 and it allows it to fire at near automatic levels its a work around the letter of the gun laws.
User avatar #91 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Why does it matter so much to you if they are trying to replicate military hardware or make guns that look like military hardware? Do you associate the military with public shootings of schoolchildren and the commitment of horrid atrocities to the American people? When I hear about a classroom full of corpses, I don't think "damn, if only that gun wasn't so military-like...".

Secondly, what do you say to the people who find enjoyment out of firing "military" firearms without having to join the military? I mentioned that automatics are a thrill ride because their are people who enjoy that thrill when they go to the range. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the recoil that only automatics can deliver. You should take it seriously because it is a pursuit of happiness that people should have the right to. Furthermore, cops and SWAT teams face the same threats that the American citizen face (potentially). Cops and SWAT arrive at a scene AFTER a situation has begun and roll out with their AR-15s when the situation gets dire. Why are the people involved before the cops arrive when evidently these "useless" firearms are what are required to get the job done?

I don't know why a cool looking and product-moving gun is dangerous to you, it confounds me...

I guess I should repeat what I said at the start since I kind of dragged us off topic pretty early on. I am Canadian and soon to be a firearms owner. I am happy that my country institutes background checks and licenses for all firearms, and that there are some limitations in place. Am I peeved a little about the no access to automatics? A little, but I can understand why some people have a distrust of them. I hope the ban is repealed, but I'm not going to take action against it because that gives the wrong message. The reason I want the US to have the freedom they do is because they have a huge military, crazy illegal gun market, multiculturalism combined with massive global resentment, and a spying government.
#92 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
It is the job of the police, the swat, the national/coastal guard, and the military to protect the Citizenship. It is not the job of the citizens to self protect. The constitution allows for you to carry a weapon and to use it in self protection and protection of property and family. The does not mean that the citizens get to play police, that is vigilante justice and is illegal.

I dont like the fact that guns are being sold for cool factor. Thats not the reason we have guns, thats not the reason to own guns. This plays back to your shooting of automatic weapons as a joy ride, if I were you I wouldnt bring that up in a discussion about gun laws it really hurts your case. The point of firearms is not to find enjoyment about firing them and dont bring up the right to pursue happiness it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I am not afraid that some how a wood stocked, bolt action hunting .30-6 is any less lethal to my little niece than a military grade fully automatic ACR. I understand these things. This is the 4th time you have brought up the function vs the form. The fat that the guns are being marketed as civilian versions of military weapons is worrying because the purpose of buying those is just that to have a gun that looks like a military weapon. If thats not worrying to you I dont know what else to say, military weapons are for killing people, and while i respect their craft and the need for them in the military thats not the items of cultural baggage I want in civilian hands.

Finally the laws have loosened in recent years, we are allowed to own Assault weapons in the US which we didnt used to be allowed to do, so despite laws being less restrictive the gun proponents continue to push for more and more ground, this will not continue and until the gun activists show them selves to be at all reasonable and are willing to discuss rather than demand this will only end poorly.
User avatar #94 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Leave your cultural baggage at home, there is no need for it here. Saying that guns cannot be owned for the enjoyment of the owner due to their possible danger is like saying a really nice car cannot be owned by someone because of the inherent dangerous ability of it. Sure, people buy crazy expensive cars that are designed to exceed the speed limit tenfold, but we allow people to buy them anyway because that is what free society is all about.

It is not the duty of the people to self-protect? I may as well go to my local clinic and apply for an anal expansion tonight so it won't hurt so much when I am raped tomorrow! The US supreme court has ruled that it is NOT and NEVER has been the duty of the police to protect you. The police have no duty to defend your life if it is at risk. That is fact, debate it all you want but it is set in stone.

The point of the second amendment is for the possibility that the military forgoes its duty to protect the citizenship. When the people have their backs against the wall, it should be their right to defend themselves against the powers that be. The fact that you believe that people should be powerless to stop a government from abusing them is ridiculous and you should feel ashamed.
#95 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
The police uphold the law, there are laws against harming civilians thus the police do protect civilians. What they were talking about is its not the job of the police to be body guards, or to act against self interest or in the interests of the state to protect individuals. I dont know what kind of wild west you think we live in but in the long run your far better off giving muggers the money on your person than you are putting up any kind of resistance. If they are desperate enough to risk jail time for the cash you have on your person they are very desperate indeed.

There is no amount of munitions or firearms that would make the gun population of the united states every pose a real threat to the government militarily. Cultural responses are far more powerful movers than uprising. Which is something the US population does all of the time, strikes boycotts people stop doing necessary services to think that the best resort to change the government when our back is up against the wall is with our own rifles shows such a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the military and the cultural and historical motivations for change I can barely take the implications your making seriously.

You know what scares me more than the government? Individuals. Individuals who are much harder to find accountable much harder to find much harder to reason with. Governments are big, extremely large and its hard for them to do much without it attracting a lot of attention. Individuals account for a lot of deaths in the US. People drive drunk, people hurt other people directly, people make mistakes and people get greedy. I dont trust individuals any more than government and so I would rather the people who have to answer to the UN and other major world powers be the ones with those particular guns, and not the people who think Obama was born in the middle east or that the world is less 10,000 years old. Of the two one is a major world power and one is fickle and unaccountable.
User avatar #96 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
As I said, you can debate it all you want but the US Supreme Court has no ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to defend your life if doing so doesn't directly contribute to capturing a criminal. If a criminal has put you in a situation where the authorities can take a risk by saving you, or instead pursue him, the police will always pursue him. I don't believe that we live in any kind of Wild West, I'm just not naive enough to think that bad things don't happen to good people.

The point of arming the populace is not to OVERCOME the military. Only a fool would even entertain the thought that the unorganized people could overthrow the armed forces of any country.

The point is that the US armed forces are comprised of Americans who I believe would feel very conflicted about trying to overthrow their own countrymen. It could still happen, as Nazi germany was defended and ordered by german military. It is the combination of this conflicted view as well as every soldier's nightmare that the next house they breach could be serving a 12-gauge dinner that prevents a regime from taking place. Its like someone asking you to enslave your own family or friends. You're already unlikely to accept at any price, but combine that with a deadly ending and the thought would be gone from your mind altogether.

Your fear of the individual is about as Orwellian as it gets. Do you also believe that freedom is slavery? It is the responsibility of every person to embrace the power which we can achieve. Bad things do happen in this world, but there is an idea of a greater good that can come of it. What makes you think that the situation in Kiev could never come to American shores? I don't see any current "political timebomb" that's going to go off and trigger some massive civil unrest, but I don't dismiss the idea of it happening in the future.

#90 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
When the gun parties do that and hide behind the letter of the law, it looks extremely badly, no reason there is push back.

We outlaw automatic firing weapons for civilians what its its automatic and has a fire rate of a bullet a minute is that outlawed? What it if its simi automatic and fires at 1600 rounds a minute? Is that legal? Those dances are not productive its a law clearly aimed at restricting fire rates in civilian weapons its not like the government gives a shit about the actual mechanism.

These dialogues are so unproductive because the pro gun parties keep pushing the line forward and are willing to give up no ground without a fight. The less ground that is willing to be given up the harder the push back will eventually be. To be frank if the general population will not cede any ground about the topic and will continue to produce guns to work around the existing laws I fully promote the push back.

There are reasonable discussions to be had about what civilians should be permitted to carry If you disagree and this all is fair in ballistic firearms so be it. We wont find any common ground and I will assume you are dishonest because if you think a nations security is directly proportional to the number of citizens who carry weapons I will bring up statistics to contradict it.

Firearms are part of america. Its part of our national identity. Its in the constitution. I hope that they continue to be all those things, but there really needs to be a intellectual conversation about this, other than knee jerk reaction to any restriction. The role of government is not only to give stability and services to the society but also to make hard choices for citizens there is always a level of freedom which is given up when you enter into a society, always and I dont see many states that exist long in anarchy so we better all come up to the table willing to give up something.
#26 - The second amendment is really no longer relevant for its prim…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/24/2014 on obama-lin-duh +1
#43 - hilariouswaste (02/24/2014) [-]
The use of the term "assault rifle" really pisses me off because it shows me people know nothing about guns. "Assault rifle" is an improper term for automatic, and is simply used by media to make guns sound scary. Furthermore, there are many hunting rifles that operate just like an AR-15, which is funny since AR-style firearms make up a huge amount of popular hunting platforms today.

Mainly, when a gun is made with black plastic and metal and vaguely resembles a military firearm people flip shit, while a gun with the same capability that has wood and a hunting stock is completely fine with them. These are the same idiots who say "need to defend your home? use a shotgun!"

In an all-out conflict with the American government, I believe the people would lose for sure. There's only so much one can do once the drones and tanks come out. However, it is the insane cost in lives and eternal resentment that stop the American government from trying anything like this. You see what happened when Boston was shut down after the marathon bombing? People were told to leave their homes and the place was cordoned off with no explanation. Any reasonable person should see there's something wrong with the meek way people just bent over and accepted that.

Furthermore, if you believe that automatic weapons have no place in property defense, ask anyone who's ever been at ground zero of a riot. Chances are they wish they might have had a little more than pop's break action turkey shotgun when the looters are smashing their door in.

People should never be limited in the extent to which they are allowed to defend themselves. If you want to live in a place where automatic firearms are not allowed, come join me up in Canada
User avatar #89 - slenderwolf (02/25/2014) [-]
It's because every soccer mom who has seen a war movie instantly pairs a black military-esque style rifle with bloodstained warriors putting bullets in peoples' heads over seas and they don't want people like that in their neighborhoods around their precious children.
#45 - bobbysnobby (02/24/2014) [-]
Impression matters. If its for protection the styling doesnt matter, you dont need a civilian firearm which is made to resemble military platforms for any practical reason. Gun culture is extremely dangerous and the statistics show it, there is a difference between owning a firearm for protection and people who go out of there way to try and get the most militarized versions of weapons they can within the extent of the law. The new weapon system a few months ago was the bump stock which was made legal is absurd. Their argument was its a different mechanism thus its not automatic which suggests that the firerate is ill-relevant. If people feel they need to have an AR-15 that fires at over 700 rounds a minute to defend their home they live in a fantasy and shouldnt be allowed to carry.

The solution to looters is not an automatic weapon. By that reasoning they should be permitted to have military grade weapons why not give them land mines or chemical weapons after all "People should never be limited in the extent to which they are allowed to defend themselves." Your claim is an absolutely absurd statement and I dont think you have thought through any of the implications. We have a right to defend our selves but excessive force is not tolerated, even if you are defending your self if you use excessive force you will be prosecuted for your crimes. Its not just fire arms where that is true, its why professional fighters have body guards because their hands feet knees whatever are all legal weapons which means if they kill someone in self defense (which they could do very easily) they can be brought to court as if they had shot the deceased. I fully defend peoples rights to carry, I also highly distrust gun culture and their constant attempts to bring the stylings and function of higher grade weapons into consumers hands, its not responsible and shows a childishness that shouldnt be around guns.
User avatar #47 - hilariouswaste (02/24/2014) [-]
Once again, the use of the term "higher grade" weapons shows me that you are not very familiar with firearms in general and that you buy into the hysteria that guns with composite stocks and a handle ahead of the back sight make them "military killing machines". Furthermore your assertion that I believe land mines and chemical weapons are okay tells me that you are obviously a bit naive to embrace this issue. Land mines and chems are indiscriminate weapons that kill anything that come across them and cannot be controlled on a one-to-one target basis. Firearms are just inanimate objects that are directed by the people who own them. Some people want to own automatics just for the hell of it. Ever fired a gun in full automatic? Its a thrill ride and a half, trust me.

It should be any American's right to buy a gun that fires any amount of bullets per minute. Who gives a shit? You think that someone with a slower-firing firearm wouldn't be able to pull off the same kind of carnage? Adam Lanza would have been able to do the same thing he did at Sandy Hook with a one-shot turkey shotgun if he wanted, since the school policy nowadays is just to kettle children.

The hell with excessive force, if someone were to bust into a home and threaten a family, they deserve the full extent of that family's wrath.

Don't blame gun culture, because guns are not the problem. The reason new and improved guns come out every year is because they are awesome pieces of tech that provide a ton of entertainment and can be useful at the same time. Military surplus is a collection item, just like fancy cars and nice golf clubs. Just because you don't understand other people's fascination doesn't mean you should deny them the things that make them happy.
#51 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
My bringing up chemicals weapons, and landmines was not to contrast them against the firearms but to highlight the absurd nature of your comment "People should never be limited in the extent to which they are allowed to defend themselves." Im glad we agree that it is absurd.

Your invoking a slippery slope argument which can be parodied with little effort. "Guns people sure, but candle sticks can also kill people, why dont we outlaw candle sticks then?" The simplest answer is that a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere on what civilians can be permitted to own and use. The debate of where that line should be is subjective and debatable. I would fallow up that debate with an argument from practicality and defend-ability. If someone shoots a bunch of cops as what happened in California with hunting rifles, sure it happens and its extremely unfortunate but we can defend the firearms they own, they are practical in many contexts. If someone shoots up a school or a public place with a bump stock AR-15 it is much harder to defend the gun's practical applications outside of those situations which would dramatically hurt gun ownership. I support peoples right to carry, I also highly disagree with the constant attempts to militarize civilian weapons. In their stylings, in their function, in the culture around the guns. Civilians weapons are for Protection, for sport, and for hunting. Military weapons (with only moderate acceptions) are for lethality and efficiency. The kind of weapons many gun advocates want are weapons we dont even issue the Police, its why in the states we have the SWAT (specal weapons assault teams) they are permitted to use military grade weapons, not civilians not police.

"Don't blame gun culture, because guns are not the problem." Must be a parody or a joke, because Guns dont have a culture as you said they are inanimate, Gun culture is the culture of PEOPLE about guns. Thus blaming Gun Culture is blaming people not guns.
User avatar #82 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
The AR-15 is the basis for many hunting rifles today, and AR-platform hunting is now a very common thing in both Canada and the US. Calling them military rifles is foolish since they have use for many things outside of the military and are commonly used for both fun and for for sport.

Just because a gun is black and has all kinds of switches does not make it unnecessary or necessarily "military". Fearing a gun because of the way it looks is retarded and you should feel retarded for thinking this way.

Your mention of chemical weapons and landmines is still just as stupid, as you have taken my quote without an ounce of thought. I was referencing firearms, and you made the assumption that I meant in any regard. By that logic, anyone could say I think people should have nuclear weapons, drones and tanks, which makes them a fucking retard for inferring so. Use a little bit of thought when you read the rest of this response this time.

You can make slippery slope arguments all you want such as candlestick killers all you want, but it just shows how infantile you are. You can defend hunting rifles because of their practicality? Why not the AR-15? They are both often semi-automatic, they fire centrefire cartridges, and can be used for hunting or shooting up schools. Implying that one only has use in the latter is ridiculous. I don't care how much you support the right to carry, it doesn't make you immune to making a stupid argument.

Lastly, why do you have such a hard-on for the bump-stock? Its to make the shooter more comfortable when firing their rifle, and is a tech that has been used in a similar fashion in shotguns for the past decade for the purpose of duck-hunting.
#87 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
You mistake dislike for fear. I am also much more aware of firearms than you care to grant. I am not bothered by colour or "all kids of switches" I'm bothered because its clearly trying to replicate military hardware to sell to civilians. If not in function then in identity. Its the same reason why in the US you only need to be 18 to own a rife and you need to be 25 to own a handgun, its because one is concealable and has a lot of cultural baggage. You only speak towards function which shows a gross lack of understanding Guns are tools, tools which carry their own weight in culture and meaning.

Your comment about "people shouldn't be limited" cannot be defended, I took it to an extreme to illiterate that you cannot, if you then backtrack and say "you know what i mean" it means your comment should have been "People should be limited, just not in this and that way" which really is the same thing im saying.

My argument is the fallowing. The republican Gun loving right side is doing its self no favors when they seem so resistant to undergo any level of mediation in gun laws. You brought up that firing full automatics are "a thrill ride", how can I take that seriously? Im republican and yet having any conversation about gun control I necessarily come out looking like a hippy liberal in contrast because im moderate. We donot need to make civilian weapons out of military weapons, its a line gun lovers should enter a discussion about. Why do we model the guns after military guns? Forget function, why do we make them look like military guns? Because its cool, and it sells product. That is dangerous to me, we do not sell weapons because they are cool, and its not an amendment "There shall be no law preventing the electorate from looking like stone cold bad asses"

As for the fixation on bump stocks, it was only legalized in the last year and a half or so for the AR 15 and it allows it to fire at near automatic levels its a work around the letter of the gun laws.
User avatar #91 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Why does it matter so much to you if they are trying to replicate military hardware or make guns that look like military hardware? Do you associate the military with public shootings of schoolchildren and the commitment of horrid atrocities to the American people? When I hear about a classroom full of corpses, I don't think "damn, if only that gun wasn't so military-like...".

Secondly, what do you say to the people who find enjoyment out of firing "military" firearms without having to join the military? I mentioned that automatics are a thrill ride because their are people who enjoy that thrill when they go to the range. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the recoil that only automatics can deliver. You should take it seriously because it is a pursuit of happiness that people should have the right to. Furthermore, cops and SWAT teams face the same threats that the American citizen face (potentially). Cops and SWAT arrive at a scene AFTER a situation has begun and roll out with their AR-15s when the situation gets dire. Why are the people involved before the cops arrive when evidently these "useless" firearms are what are required to get the job done?

I don't know why a cool looking and product-moving gun is dangerous to you, it confounds me...

I guess I should repeat what I said at the start since I kind of dragged us off topic pretty early on. I am Canadian and soon to be a firearms owner. I am happy that my country institutes background checks and licenses for all firearms, and that there are some limitations in place. Am I peeved a little about the no access to automatics? A little, but I can understand why some people have a distrust of them. I hope the ban is repealed, but I'm not going to take action against it because that gives the wrong message. The reason I want the US to have the freedom they do is because they have a huge military, crazy illegal gun market, multiculturalism combined with massive global resentment, and a spying government.
#92 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
It is the job of the police, the swat, the national/coastal guard, and the military to protect the Citizenship. It is not the job of the citizens to self protect. The constitution allows for you to carry a weapon and to use it in self protection and protection of property and family. The does not mean that the citizens get to play police, that is vigilante justice and is illegal.

I dont like the fact that guns are being sold for cool factor. Thats not the reason we have guns, thats not the reason to own guns. This plays back to your shooting of automatic weapons as a joy ride, if I were you I wouldnt bring that up in a discussion about gun laws it really hurts your case. The point of firearms is not to find enjoyment about firing them and dont bring up the right to pursue happiness it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I am not afraid that some how a wood stocked, bolt action hunting .30-6 is any less lethal to my little niece than a military grade fully automatic ACR. I understand these things. This is the 4th time you have brought up the function vs the form. The fat that the guns are being marketed as civilian versions of military weapons is worrying because the purpose of buying those is just that to have a gun that looks like a military weapon. If thats not worrying to you I dont know what else to say, military weapons are for killing people, and while i respect their craft and the need for them in the military thats not the items of cultural baggage I want in civilian hands.

Finally the laws have loosened in recent years, we are allowed to own Assault weapons in the US which we didnt used to be allowed to do, so despite laws being less restrictive the gun proponents continue to push for more and more ground, this will not continue and until the gun activists show them selves to be at all reasonable and are willing to discuss rather than demand this will only end poorly.
User avatar #94 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
Leave your cultural baggage at home, there is no need for it here. Saying that guns cannot be owned for the enjoyment of the owner due to their possible danger is like saying a really nice car cannot be owned by someone because of the inherent dangerous ability of it. Sure, people buy crazy expensive cars that are designed to exceed the speed limit tenfold, but we allow people to buy them anyway because that is what free society is all about.

It is not the duty of the people to self-protect? I may as well go to my local clinic and apply for an anal expansion tonight so it won't hurt so much when I am raped tomorrow! The US supreme court has ruled that it is NOT and NEVER has been the duty of the police to protect you. The police have no duty to defend your life if it is at risk. That is fact, debate it all you want but it is set in stone.

The point of the second amendment is for the possibility that the military forgoes its duty to protect the citizenship. When the people have their backs against the wall, it should be their right to defend themselves against the powers that be. The fact that you believe that people should be powerless to stop a government from abusing them is ridiculous and you should feel ashamed.
#95 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
The police uphold the law, there are laws against harming civilians thus the police do protect civilians. What they were talking about is its not the job of the police to be body guards, or to act against self interest or in the interests of the state to protect individuals. I dont know what kind of wild west you think we live in but in the long run your far better off giving muggers the money on your person than you are putting up any kind of resistance. If they are desperate enough to risk jail time for the cash you have on your person they are very desperate indeed.

There is no amount of munitions or firearms that would make the gun population of the united states every pose a real threat to the government militarily. Cultural responses are far more powerful movers than uprising. Which is something the US population does all of the time, strikes boycotts people stop doing necessary services to think that the best resort to change the government when our back is up against the wall is with our own rifles shows such a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the military and the cultural and historical motivations for change I can barely take the implications your making seriously.

You know what scares me more than the government? Individuals. Individuals who are much harder to find accountable much harder to find much harder to reason with. Governments are big, extremely large and its hard for them to do much without it attracting a lot of attention. Individuals account for a lot of deaths in the US. People drive drunk, people hurt other people directly, people make mistakes and people get greedy. I dont trust individuals any more than government and so I would rather the people who have to answer to the UN and other major world powers be the ones with those particular guns, and not the people who think Obama was born in the middle east or that the world is less 10,000 years old. Of the two one is a major world power and one is fickle and unaccountable.
User avatar #96 - hilariouswaste (02/25/2014) [-]
As I said, you can debate it all you want but the US Supreme Court has no ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to defend your life if doing so doesn't directly contribute to capturing a criminal. If a criminal has put you in a situation where the authorities can take a risk by saving you, or instead pursue him, the police will always pursue him. I don't believe that we live in any kind of Wild West, I'm just not naive enough to think that bad things don't happen to good people.

The point of arming the populace is not to OVERCOME the military. Only a fool would even entertain the thought that the unorganized people could overthrow the armed forces of any country.

The point is that the US armed forces are comprised of Americans who I believe would feel very conflicted about trying to overthrow their own countrymen. It could still happen, as Nazi germany was defended and ordered by german military. It is the combination of this conflicted view as well as every soldier's nightmare that the next house they breach could be serving a 12-gauge dinner that prevents a regime from taking place. Its like someone asking you to enslave your own family or friends. You're already unlikely to accept at any price, but combine that with a deadly ending and the thought would be gone from your mind altogether.

Your fear of the individual is about as Orwellian as it gets. Do you also believe that freedom is slavery? It is the responsibility of every person to embrace the power which we can achieve. Bad things do happen in this world, but there is an idea of a greater good that can come of it. What makes you think that the situation in Kiev could never come to American shores? I don't see any current "political timebomb" that's going to go off and trigger some massive civil unrest, but I don't dismiss the idea of it happening in the future.

#90 - bobbysnobby (02/25/2014) [-]
When the gun parties do that and hide behind the letter of the law, it looks extremely badly, no reason there is push back.

We outlaw automatic firing weapons for civilians what its its automatic and has a fire rate of a bullet a minute is that outlawed? What it if its simi automatic and fires at 1600 rounds a minute? Is that legal? Those dances are not productive its a law clearly aimed at restricting fire rates in civilian weapons its not like the government gives a shit about the actual mechanism.

These dialogues are so unproductive because the pro gun parties keep pushing the line forward and are willing to give up no ground without a fight. The less ground that is willing to be given up the harder the push back will eventually be. To be frank if the general population will not cede any ground about the topic and will continue to produce guns to work around the existing laws I fully promote the push back.

There are reasonable discussions to be had about what civilians should be permitted to carry If you disagree and this all is fair in ballistic firearms so be it. We wont find any common ground and I will assume you are dishonest because if you think a nations security is directly proportional to the number of citizens who carry weapons I will bring up statistics to contradict it.

Firearms are part of america. Its part of our national identity. Its in the constitution. I hope that they continue to be all those things, but there really needs to be a intellectual conversation about this, other than knee jerk reaction to any restriction. The role of government is not only to give stability and services to the society but also to make hard choices for citizens there is always a level of freedom which is given up when you enter into a society, always and I dont see many states that exist long in anarchy so we better all come up to the table willing to give up something.
#1 - Wasnt even a wombo combo. This is a wombo combo. 02/24/2014 on that ain't mundo 0
#87 - Deer are red green colour blind, orange and green look like th…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/23/2014 on Camouflage 0
#95 - arnolddusk (02/23/2014) [-]
**arnolddusk rolled a random image posted in comment #15 at Safe Driving ** Because that would be too easy.
#90 - terminex (02/23/2014) [-]
Hm, didn't know that about them. Maybe it would just appear in a different shade to the dear which a hunter would worry about.
But really your probably right then, why not where orange.
#83 - Camouflage makes no sense for hunting. Why not have hunters we…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/23/2014 on Camouflage 0
User avatar #136 - invshika (02/23/2014) [-]
because fuck you
#106 - evanj (02/23/2014) [-]
they might not even be hunting deer, they could be hunting things like turkeys or elks, which have different ranges of sight
#85 - terminex (02/23/2014) [-]
um… Ya the deer they should be hunting aren't going to be as domesticated as local deer.
Some might not run but some will. If they here a quiet sound but don't see anything they are less likely to run away.
#87 - bobbysnobby (02/23/2014) [-]
Deer are red green colour blind, orange and green look like the same colour to them.
#95 - arnolddusk (02/23/2014) [-]
**arnolddusk rolled a random image posted in comment #15 at Safe Driving ** Because that would be too easy.
#90 - terminex (02/23/2014) [-]
Hm, didn't know that about them. Maybe it would just appear in a different shade to the dear which a hunter would worry about.
But really your probably right then, why not where orange.
#177 - I was taught that you dont hit women. But that women dont hit … 02/23/2014 on Equality means everyone is... +9
#48 - Has to me more issues that you had with the game. Fat boy Thin…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/22/2014 on DS & M +7
User avatar #147 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
You are acting as though I'm saying it's the worst game ever made.
All I said was I found it was far to easy compared to the way everyone acted about it.

The its' self was okay I woudln't call it the best like some do but it wasn't bad. It was just disappointing.

#11 - Its challenge is secondary to the quality of the game, and I a…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/22/2014 on DS & M +41
User avatar #43 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
has to be more what??

it was super over hyped about its difficulty.

then i beat it and it was pathetically easy compared to the way people acted about it.

Then everyone was like try the pvp makes it much harder.

So I tried the pvp and got a bunch of dudes rolling a lot and never attacking...

If I wasn't so disappointed by the game I'd probably have a few better thing to say about it but as I've said in other post it';s the biggest gaming I ever had.
#48 - bobbysnobby (02/22/2014) [-]
Has to me more issues that you had with the game. Fat boy Thin Boy is not an easy encounter even veterans of dark souls still find it to be a challenging fight.

If your argument is "I didn't care for it i found it too easy" thats fine, but it also is like saying that a 1000 piece puzzle is over rated because its no harder than a 100 piece puzzle. Its not as hard as you wished but the game wasnt made just to be difficult the games Director spoke about how the games challenge is just for a feeling of accomplishment its not the games mission statement.

If the game was too easy I would recommend playing Demon's Soul on the ps3, I find it to be the harder of the two with many of the same qualities.

I cant just say your wrong about the difficulty we all have differing skill sets in video games. I would say that X-com enemy within is a more difficult game on impossible difficulty as I haven't beaten it, but I have beaten dark souls. So difficulty is totally subjective. I would be curious to find out what modern games you find challenging if you find Dark souls to be pathetically easy, and which games you find truely rewarding.

I would say the best games made would include Dark Souls and From Software has shown themselves to be quality game developer and so we are looking forward to Dark Souls 2.

Finally if your trying to rustle feathers by talking about how easy of a game it is thats fine but its also not productive. I cant think of anyone who has played Dark Souls and call it pathetically easy. I will be the first person to say that dark souls is not as hard as people make it out to be but its far from easy. It rewards smart play, reflexes and problem solving. If you found it easy be glad and enjoy the experience its just a compliment to your video game skills and it means you can do interesting stuff in the game.

Its just very odd to hear that it sucked because it was not hard enough, of all the criticisms against dark souls that has to be the strangest.
User avatar #147 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
You are acting as though I'm saying it's the worst game ever made.
All I said was I found it was far to easy compared to the way everyone acted about it.

The its' self was okay I woudln't call it the best like some do but it wasn't bad. It was just disappointing.

#9 - I am extremely curious as to why you think the first game was …  [+] (11 new replies) 02/22/2014 on DS & M +2
User avatar #10 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
well mostly because no one would shut the hell up about it.

every talks about how it's such a great game and how difficult it was and bla bla fucking bla.

the game isn't hard at all unless your stupid as fuck all the stops people die in so much are so fucking obvious it's some kinda trap or set up.

and the pvp is just horrible its nothing but retards rolling around in the most predicable ways or people trying to shoot and run away.

It is the most disappointing game I've ever played in my whole life.
User avatar #78 - milomcrobbie (02/22/2014) [-]
you're actually complaining, that a game got hype due to people playing it and finding it good. top fucking lawl that is so stupid
User avatar #26 - wisdomtooth (02/22/2014) [-]
If you go into something thinking it's gonna be shit, it's gonna be a bad experience for you no matter what.
User avatar #41 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
I went into that game thinking it was going to be challenging

what I got was the biggest video game disappointment of my life
#94 - anonymous (02/22/2014) [-]
just because you did not enjoy does not mean you should ruin it for everyone else
User avatar #145 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
how on earth did I ruin anything??
User avatar #23 - thenameschuck (02/22/2014) [-]
it was hyped 2 years after its release, so not really hyped just lot of attention
#11 - bobbysnobby (02/22/2014) [-]
Its challenge is secondary to the quality of the game, and I agree the challenge is over played. There are a couple reasons why I think its a very good game, and the best to come around in a long long time. Its a game that is very well balanced you can beat the game never leveling up, it can take a first playthough about 40 hours if you are playing blind, yet it can be speed-runned in less than an hour.

The game treats its players with respect both in our abilities to learn from mistakes, to grasp what needs to be accomplished, and in both finding and understanding the story. It doesnt feel the need to hand hold the players like most modern games and will never break the tempo of the game to tell you what to do. PvP is really a small component of dark souls so it is what it is and isnt too special to be sure.

The game is not easy and I dont agree that its "all trap or set up", some fights are genuinely challenging and that comment makes me think you might not have played the game through .

Most of the reasons people take about the game so adamantly is because its such a breath of fresh air in the modern gaming landscape. Games like Skyrim, modern military shooters, even games many consider great like the modern batman franchise hold your hand at every corner. Skyrim is the clearest case where its quite literally harder to fail than it is to succeed, without challenge there is no point and no value at succeeding. Dark souls also has a very interesting narrative where the sources telling the story are lying the more you learn about the story the more ambiguous the endings become. I also find it has high replay value and I have put in about 500sh hours into it which for 60 bucks I think is a very good deal.

Your criticisms are that its not as hard as people claim which I would agree with. That the only deaths are from obvious traps and setups which I disagree with. That pvp is just horrible which I would say is not really the point, but fine. There has to be more
User avatar #43 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
has to be more what??

it was super over hyped about its difficulty.

then i beat it and it was pathetically easy compared to the way people acted about it.

Then everyone was like try the pvp makes it much harder.

So I tried the pvp and got a bunch of dudes rolling a lot and never attacking...

If I wasn't so disappointed by the game I'd probably have a few better thing to say about it but as I've said in other post it';s the biggest gaming I ever had.
#48 - bobbysnobby (02/22/2014) [-]
Has to me more issues that you had with the game. Fat boy Thin Boy is not an easy encounter even veterans of dark souls still find it to be a challenging fight.

If your argument is "I didn't care for it i found it too easy" thats fine, but it also is like saying that a 1000 piece puzzle is over rated because its no harder than a 100 piece puzzle. Its not as hard as you wished but the game wasnt made just to be difficult the games Director spoke about how the games challenge is just for a feeling of accomplishment its not the games mission statement.

If the game was too easy I would recommend playing Demon's Soul on the ps3, I find it to be the harder of the two with many of the same qualities.

I cant just say your wrong about the difficulty we all have differing skill sets in video games. I would say that X-com enemy within is a more difficult game on impossible difficulty as I haven't beaten it, but I have beaten dark souls. So difficulty is totally subjective. I would be curious to find out what modern games you find challenging if you find Dark souls to be pathetically easy, and which games you find truely rewarding.

I would say the best games made would include Dark Souls and From Software has shown themselves to be quality game developer and so we are looking forward to Dark Souls 2.

Finally if your trying to rustle feathers by talking about how easy of a game it is thats fine but its also not productive. I cant think of anyone who has played Dark Souls and call it pathetically easy. I will be the first person to say that dark souls is not as hard as people make it out to be but its far from easy. It rewards smart play, reflexes and problem solving. If you found it easy be glad and enjoy the experience its just a compliment to your video game skills and it means you can do interesting stuff in the game.

Its just very odd to hear that it sucked because it was not hard enough, of all the criticisms against dark souls that has to be the strangest.
User avatar #147 - sparkyoneonetwo (02/22/2014) [-]
You are acting as though I'm saying it's the worst game ever made.
All I said was I found it was far to easy compared to the way everyone acted about it.

The its' self was okay I woudln't call it the best like some do but it wasn't bad. It was just disappointing.

#3 - This is unlikely to be a shared opinion but the filling is my …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/21/2014 on Milck's fayvrit cookiemonster 0
#5 - twofreegerbils (02/22/2014) [-]
Just kidding, everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.
User avatar #4 - cezand (02/22/2014) [-]
I respect your opinion, but as I have never had Oreos I cannot agree nor disagree, continue strong.
#76 - Comment deleted 02/20/2014 on Gay 4 0
#132 - Also seeing as Lucas worked extensively on the EU I require a …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/20/2014 on The Galactic empire 0
#161 - endospore (02/20/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon#George_Lucas_and_Star_Wars_canon

He pretty specifically states that the EU is a 'parallel universe' to the movies he made. He even says that he's never even read any of the books, so that should give you a pretty good feel for what his opinion is.

And it doesn't really matter what you consider canon. What matters is what the creator considers canon. Of course, this is all fiction so it doesn't really matter as long as you enjoy it. It just gets annoying when people jump in with five different ways their favorite Mary Sue could beat up the actual characters.
User avatar #196 - mulciber (02/20/2014) [-]
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/01/op-ed-disney-takes-a-chainsaw-to-the-star-wars-expanded-universe/

Disney plans on redoing what is and isn't canon (mostly by saying 90% of EU is bullshit).
#130 - I say that the prequels aren't cannon because they dont logica… 02/20/2014 on The Galactic empire 0
#163 - IN DEFENSE OF THE RULES. We have 46 states and 4 comm… 02/20/2014 on Dumb people... 0
#105 - C'baoth was cloned and his clone had identical abilities able …  [+] (5 new replies) 02/20/2014 on The Galactic empire 0
#124 - endospore (02/20/2014) [-]
Expanded Universe is not canon, both from the mouth of Boy George himself and logically speaking since the new movies will very likely ruin any of the continuity in the EU.

In my opinion, it's rightfully non-canon thanks to all the Mary Sues running about. Half the books are "My Jedi is stronger than yours!"
#132 - bobbysnobby (02/20/2014) [-]
Also seeing as Lucas worked extensively on the EU I require a first degree citation on him saying it was not cannon.
#161 - endospore (02/20/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon#George_Lucas_and_Star_Wars_canon

He pretty specifically states that the EU is a 'parallel universe' to the movies he made. He even says that he's never even read any of the books, so that should give you a pretty good feel for what his opinion is.

And it doesn't really matter what you consider canon. What matters is what the creator considers canon. Of course, this is all fiction so it doesn't really matter as long as you enjoy it. It just gets annoying when people jump in with five different ways their favorite Mary Sue could beat up the actual characters.
User avatar #196 - mulciber (02/20/2014) [-]
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/01/op-ed-disney-takes-a-chainsaw-to-the-star-wars-expanded-universe/

Disney plans on redoing what is and isn't canon (mostly by saying 90% of EU is bullshit).
#130 - bobbysnobby (02/20/2014) [-]
I say that the prequels aren't cannon because they dont logically sync up with the first 3 movies. Where does that leave us? George Lucas is hardly a good enough writer to trump talents like Timmothy Zahn and seeing as Zahn was licensed by Lucas films its about as cannon as it comes. Removing all but the first 3 films leaves us with Vader being one of the weakest his total force use is summed up by blocking a laser shot from Solo and coking a few guys.
#78 - "Strongest Force user that ever lived" C'Baoth stopp…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/20/2014 on The Galactic empire 0
User avatar #87 - commandershit (02/20/2014) [-]
I said strongest not best
Vader lacks the training others had and in general he didn't give much of a fuck for lessons
#105 - bobbysnobby (02/20/2014) [-]
C'baoth was cloned and his clone had identical abilities able to mind control about 40thousand empire clones and micromanage them in their operations on numerous dreadnaught destroyers.

Loop hole dodged.
#124 - endospore (02/20/2014) [-]
Expanded Universe is not canon, both from the mouth of Boy George himself and logically speaking since the new movies will very likely ruin any of the continuity in the EU.

In my opinion, it's rightfully non-canon thanks to all the Mary Sues running about. Half the books are "My Jedi is stronger than yours!"
#132 - bobbysnobby (02/20/2014) [-]
Also seeing as Lucas worked extensively on the EU I require a first degree citation on him saying it was not cannon.
#161 - endospore (02/20/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon#George_Lucas_and_Star_Wars_canon

He pretty specifically states that the EU is a 'parallel universe' to the movies he made. He even says that he's never even read any of the books, so that should give you a pretty good feel for what his opinion is.

And it doesn't really matter what you consider canon. What matters is what the creator considers canon. Of course, this is all fiction so it doesn't really matter as long as you enjoy it. It just gets annoying when people jump in with five different ways their favorite Mary Sue could beat up the actual characters.
User avatar #196 - mulciber (02/20/2014) [-]
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/01/op-ed-disney-takes-a-chainsaw-to-the-star-wars-expanded-universe/

Disney plans on redoing what is and isn't canon (mostly by saying 90% of EU is bullshit).
#130 - bobbysnobby (02/20/2014) [-]
I say that the prequels aren't cannon because they dont logically sync up with the first 3 movies. Where does that leave us? George Lucas is hardly a good enough writer to trump talents like Timmothy Zahn and seeing as Zahn was licensed by Lucas films its about as cannon as it comes. Removing all but the first 3 films leaves us with Vader being one of the weakest his total force use is summed up by blocking a laser shot from Solo and coking a few guys.
#109 - Young kids will take nothing from them, they are scars like an… 02/19/2014 on That feely feel you're feeling +1
#53 - They let gods sign up to funnyjunk? I'm amazed and staggered b… 02/18/2014 on read faster -1
#51 - An insightful and informative suggestion I will do just as you… 02/18/2014 on wii -2
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 160 / Total items point value: 1820

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)