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

hide menu

captainfuckitall    

Rank #299 on Comments
captainfuckitall Avatar Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul
Offline
Send mail to captainfuckitall Block captainfuckitall Invite captainfuckitall to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#299
Highest Content Rank:#10530
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 34 total,  90 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 52068 total,  63621 ,  11553
Content Level Progress: 66.1% (39/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 38.5% (385/1000)
Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:21
Content Views:9728
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:15223
FJ Points:20610

latest user's comments

#348 - No need to get mad. How do you know? Do you not see t…  [+] (12 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan +2
User avatar #355 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you realize that people finds this over the top, if they start with doing shit like killing people and such people wont stand for it, but a revolution with guns wont help, besides politicians arent aliens, they are people chosen by people to rule
User avatar #531 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
What do you mean a revolution with guns won't help. If the government is going around killing people in broad daylight, and you go out there to protest peacefully, then odds are you are going to get shot, or at least locked so deep in prison that you never see the light of day again.

And to the politician argument, just because they are elected doesnt mean they have your opinions in mind. Any simple minded jackass can get up on stage and give a speech to appease the masses. That doesn't mean that they actually have any plans to carry out anything they ever said. And these days, most politicians only get into their positions through connections and family, putting them in the pocket of whoever got them there.
User avatar #534 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
what do you solve by having a revolution with violence, you get a new leader who took the lead by force or you get a bunch of asshats fighting each other for power, either way the country gets destabilized and the people suffer for it
User avatar #544 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
By that logic, what do you solve by sitting on your ass while the government begins to control every aspect of your life while having the power to place you in prison or even kill you for whatever they feel you did wrong?
User avatar #552 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you can work to change the land from the inside, join politics, try to work your way up the ladder to change things, seriously dude, look at all the countries that have had rebellions and see what happened after
(the usa rebellion against brittain wasnt the one were talking about btw, it was done by the leaders of the country who knew what they were doing)
User avatar #564 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Again, odds are, if the government is beginning to use violence against civilians, then they are not going to let some nobody come in and just change they way they do things by climbing the ladder. By this time, they would be damn well committed to keeping with the officials they have and not changing. And who's to say that whoever is spearheading thsi revolution has no knowledge of how to run a country. They could be brave enough to stand against tyranny and still be a able to lead.
User avatar #569 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
have anyone who spearheaded a revolution ever had that? and if they had did the people let them stay in power?
User avatar #570 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Honestly, not many. But saying that no revolutionary leaders will have political knowledge based on the past is like saying the US government will never turn tyrannical because it has never happened here. I would rather have the guns and not need them, than not have any guns when a day comes and I do need them.
User avatar #571 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
but even when the day comes the guns wont help, theyre just hollow promises.
and seriously dude, when you look at the population of your country, do you honestly think they would choose a good guy to lead? or even if they did let him stay on?
User avatar #572 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
I do think they will help. The number of armed civilians for out numbers the number of military personnel, and thats not taking into account that the majority of military personnel won't fire on civilians and would join with the rebels.

And yes I do think that a revolution here would be able to bring in a great leader. If someone is able to rally and lead a revolution that is millions strong, then odds are they are a damn fine leader, and that person would stay in power as long as he follows the american rights because the rebels wont allow someone else to overthrow that person.
User avatar #607 - admiralen (09/19/2013) [-]
do you honestly think they would stay in power? the people think theyre gonna do amazing changes and such, but thats not feasible, they dont have that much to work with, so then the people gets mad and does a new rebellion since it worked so fine just recently
User avatar #379 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
They have, actually. F.B.I. can raid houses and kill people (and have) without due process, what's difficult is doing that without media notice, but that's the very reason the media gets bribed and owned by someone who wouldn't want that information getting out. So can the C.I.A., actually.

If someone starts violence it only stands to reason to react with violence, simple. Besides, how ELSE would you react to someone saying "Do this, or I will kill you"? And while it's true they are voted for by the people, it's also true that the government has become an "All Boys Club" in the last few years, only letting people in whom they choose to let in; they can also strong-arm other people out of elections and get more support through taking bribes and what-not, as they have in the past.
#297 - So I should have my rights denied because it may hurt another …  [+] (14 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan +1
User avatar #304 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
OK , well what if you were the only person in America who wanted to own a gun ... ?

At what point does the majority rule take effect , 51%

If I lived in America and saw that guns on a whole were a detriment to society I would question the need for you to own a gun.

Because by you saying you're rights shouldn't be denied, you're openly saying that the mass shootings and 10,000 homicides are justified for you to own a gun.

User avatar #362 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Then I should own one; just because someone doesn't take advantage of their rights doesn't mean mine should be denied.

The majority rule IS in effect, they just choose not to own one much like I choose to do so.

Except guns are not a detriment, as if they were, we wouldn't have them at all. But we do for purposes of war and battle, they DO have their uses even in civilian life.

And by saying that nobody should have a gun, you're saying that you would prefer to leave it entirely on circumstances; such as when a woman is raped by a man because he's 100 pounds heavier, or when a teenager knifes up a school because nobody can get close to him and nobody wants to because he has a bloody knife. Just because some people go nuts doesn't mean every person should have their rights revoked. (And for the record, if you WANT to start killing people, you will; having a gun or not won't make a single difference, it just makes it easier).
User avatar #369 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
I am saying if I was to vote, I would vote against them as is my right, and the guns were made illegal it would be my right to live in a country without guns

Guns can be a detriment, there are pros and cons , you must accept that ? I can see that they can do good , and can do bad, and in my opinion which I have formed looking at evidence there are more cons than pros

I am not talking about hypothetical scenarios , we can go back and forth with those for pro and con, all I am saying is that you cannot be like the rest of the idiots who think there aren't any negative aspects.

There needs to be an address of these negative aspect instead of pretending they don't exist, because it's a real immoral stance to take to ignore any evidence that you disagree with
User avatar #386 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
It is within your rights to live safely, but you do not have a right to take away another person's rights.

Of course I do, I'm just saying that guns are part of a process, and that process can only lead to higher things. Guns are no greater a detriment than warships are.

Are you kidding me? Recently, the ONLY thing people have been addressing is the negative aspect; I have yet to look on the news and see a "Pro-Gun Guy" who is NOT going against the interviewer.
User avatar #409 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
But it's the interviewer who is trying to get them to admit that there is a problem which needs addressing

Like Piers Morgan, three people came on the show to instead of talk about solutions they were defending a system which is broken, at least ackowlege a problem and take steps to fix it .

Why not just have hand guns be legal or shot guns, they can defend you in the home and on the street ?
User avatar #415 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
There is a problem that needs addressing, but it's not taking rights away, and that's the point many of those same interviewers try to make.

They can, but criminals don't care about laws and will get guns much more suited for killing rather than defense, and it's up to me to defend myself accordingly. Furthermore, that doesn't defend me from the government, which is what a militia is made-for in the first place.
User avatar #420 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
I can understand the criminal aspect, that is a fair and valid point


The government tyranny bit is so asinine, that's the sort of tin foil hat stuff, I mean really even including the need to own a gun to "protect yourself from the government" just doesn't have any place in the debate.

Looking at the army , size of government , western world, the UN , the EU all the comparisons people like ALex Jones make to Germany Russia and China are so wildly out of context

User avatar #423 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I didn't include it myself, it was included in the rights of the constitution and is one of the reasons it's there in the first-place, I was simply repeating it. Even so, saying it's impossible for a government to try and dominate its citizens seems a bit naive Especially considering the laws and regulations that have already been broken by the government
User avatar #605 - PubLandlord (09/19/2013) [-]
But thinking you're somehow going to all rise up against the government and fight them on the streets seems pretty ridiculous
User avatar #606 - captainfuckitall (09/19/2013) [-]
And if they did so, what else would you propose?
User avatar #614 - PubLandlord (09/19/2013) [-]
Well I would imagine going up against a country that spends more on their military than the next 10 countries combined i wouldn't be easy

It seems pretty stupid to be trying to defend yourselves agains ta possible dystopian future when you're currently living in one and doing nothing to address it
User avatar #616 - captainfuckitall (09/19/2013) [-]
That's the point. Besides, just because something may be more powerful than you does not mean you shouldn't fight against it.
User avatar #622 - PubLandlord (09/20/2013) [-]
So you're saying I should start arming myself to fight the US army on the off chance they attack the UK

User avatar #630 - captainfuckitall (09/20/2013) [-]
Or anyone else who may threaten your life and well-being
#287 - You'd rather live in an oppressive and tyrannical state than f…  [+] (33 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan +2
User avatar #295 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
its not about that, its about not being a retard, your fucking government arent gonna go 1983 on your ass, and even if they did a gun wouldnt help
User avatar #353 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
And for the record, guns WOULD help, as there are more citizens than government officials and police, we would have far more man-power against them. And before you go on about tanks and planes and warships, it's true that they have those, but it's also true that a plane can't kick down your door; such an action takes people, and people are a lot more hesitant to do that when the risk involves getting a bullet in the chest
User avatar #381 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
why would a plane need to kick down a door? it would bomb your ass
User avatar #388 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Then they would be ruler of nothing, and that's counter-productive.

Furthermore, again, you're using the argument of "Just because they are stronger means we shouldn't try to fight back", and that's a very cowardly view.
User avatar #395 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
or they make an example out of you and enjoy ruling the rest of the scared sheep
User avatar #402 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
And yet if nobody caved in, they couldn't do that, could they?

You're STILL being very cowardly, you value your life over the principles of freedom and happiness, even of other people, and that speaks very ill of your character.
User avatar #405 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im being realistic, youre being dead, it helps no one to die pointlessly, but again, THEY ARENT MONSTERS, why dont any american get that, the government arent aliens, they are fucking people
#465 - Dlsqueak (09/18/2013) [-]
I would gladly give my life fighting tyranny in hopes that my children could live free.
User avatar #476 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you wont have any children, and if you do and act like this they will die with you
#486 - Dlsqueak (09/18/2013) [-]
Not necessarily, precautions could be taken to keep them safe (and would be taken). Life isn't black and white no matter how much you wish it to be so.
User avatar #494 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
i doubt you have the resources to do such things, and fighting the government isnt the way to go dude, every fucking rebellion ever except for maybe the original american one have thrown the country straight to hell and made it several times worse, and the american one worked cause the leaders of the country did it
User avatar #427 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all fucking people too.

Hitler was democratically elected, Stalin was given his seat by his fellow government officials, and the people raised Mao to the throne.

Our current government is not made up of monsters, and at no point since the founding of our nation have the people had need of an armed insurrection. The fact we have not needed it yet does not change the purpose behind the words written in our bill of rights to ensure our continued freedom. Nothing lasts forever, and everything changes, and the second amendment exists to give the American people the power to make those changes their bitch, and control their own destinies.

Redbullfanatic asked for reasons why a civilian would need an assault rifle, I gave an answer. And if assault rifles are so useless, why are insurgents in the middle east, armed with little more than Assault rifles and IED's, able to continue a war with the greatest military in the world for over 10 fucking years? The insurgents are a insignificant minority there, now imagine half the fucking nation armed and pissed off.

Summary? We don't need them now, but we need to have them to be prepared for when a day comes that we do need them.
User avatar #432 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you know why assault rifles are useless? CAUSE ITS MADE TO FUCKING KILL PEOPLE! IT HAS NO OTHER USE THAN FUCKING KILLING PEOPLE! ITS THE REASON SEVERAL MURDERERS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY KILLED MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE AT ONCE IN YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY
User avatar #439 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
I would disagree, given that every one of those mass murders have occurred in a "gun free zone". The only reason the death tolls were so high is that no-one else in the are was allowed to carry a weapon. That and near all of those mass murders you are referring to were done with handguns, or non-automatic rifles (meaning they were not AR's). When all law abiding citizens are forced to leave their guns behind. And you walk into one of those hippie "gun free zones" with a jacket full of extra clips, shooting unarmed civilians with a pistol or an assault rifle makes little difference.

Also, don't get your panties so bunched up. My argument was perfectly valid, and using caps to try and make your point seem more valid is rather childish. That, and them being efficient at killing people doesn't make my comment any less valid.
User avatar #440 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
there is literally no fucking point to owning an assault rifle unless for hobby or for being a killer, and i dont think its a good idea to make it easy for the killers cause you wanna feel like your dick is big
#458 - devildogpratt (09/18/2013) [-]
have any facts or are you just going to reply on name calling and 'muh feelins'?
User avatar #466 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
who are you? this conversation isnt with you, and please go ahead and give me some good reasons why civilians should own assault rifles
(btw protecting yourself from the government is a retarded argument and i dont take people who use it seriously)
User avatar #452 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
Petty insults only serve to further belittle you already weak argument. Ensured protection against foreign or domestic tyranny is a perfectly valid reason. The fact that you continually ignore everything I say makes this rather difficult but I will say it once more. Very few mass killings are carried out with assault rifles. The ones done with handguns tend to have higher casualty rates.

You are beginning to try my patience, your inability to respond to a statement properly makes having a discussion with you unpleasant. Either reply to what is said in a comment or don't use the reply button.
User avatar #456 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
i have replied to civilians owning assault rifles, theres simply no point, and dont say its to protect yourself from the government, really dude you dont even believe that yourself
User avatar #408 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You're not being realistic, you're being the exact reason why it's so easy to rule over people. I wouldn't be dying pointlessly, I would be dying standing by my principles, and I would rather die doing that than living without them.

You say that as if people aren't capable of evil.
User avatar #348 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
No need to get mad.

How do you know? Do you not see the way America is heading? The government and politicians are getting more and more bold in breaking laws and altering them in their favour and in more and more occasions are using brute force openly rather than legal means.

Furthermore, taking the approach of "Well, they're stronger, so we shouldn't even try" is STILL very cowardly, and if the rest of the world took that approach through-out history you'd find the entire world being dominated by a single man because nobody cared enough to tell him to screw off
User avatar #355 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you realize that people finds this over the top, if they start with doing shit like killing people and such people wont stand for it, but a revolution with guns wont help, besides politicians arent aliens, they are people chosen by people to rule
User avatar #531 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
What do you mean a revolution with guns won't help. If the government is going around killing people in broad daylight, and you go out there to protest peacefully, then odds are you are going to get shot, or at least locked so deep in prison that you never see the light of day again.

And to the politician argument, just because they are elected doesnt mean they have your opinions in mind. Any simple minded jackass can get up on stage and give a speech to appease the masses. That doesn't mean that they actually have any plans to carry out anything they ever said. And these days, most politicians only get into their positions through connections and family, putting them in the pocket of whoever got them there.
User avatar #534 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
what do you solve by having a revolution with violence, you get a new leader who took the lead by force or you get a bunch of asshats fighting each other for power, either way the country gets destabilized and the people suffer for it
User avatar #544 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
By that logic, what do you solve by sitting on your ass while the government begins to control every aspect of your life while having the power to place you in prison or even kill you for whatever they feel you did wrong?
User avatar #552 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you can work to change the land from the inside, join politics, try to work your way up the ladder to change things, seriously dude, look at all the countries that have had rebellions and see what happened after
(the usa rebellion against brittain wasnt the one were talking about btw, it was done by the leaders of the country who knew what they were doing)
User avatar #564 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Again, odds are, if the government is beginning to use violence against civilians, then they are not going to let some nobody come in and just change they way they do things by climbing the ladder. By this time, they would be damn well committed to keeping with the officials they have and not changing. And who's to say that whoever is spearheading thsi revolution has no knowledge of how to run a country. They could be brave enough to stand against tyranny and still be a able to lead.
User avatar #569 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
have anyone who spearheaded a revolution ever had that? and if they had did the people let them stay in power?
User avatar #570 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Honestly, not many. But saying that no revolutionary leaders will have political knowledge based on the past is like saying the US government will never turn tyrannical because it has never happened here. I would rather have the guns and not need them, than not have any guns when a day comes and I do need them.
User avatar #571 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
but even when the day comes the guns wont help, theyre just hollow promises.
and seriously dude, when you look at the population of your country, do you honestly think they would choose a good guy to lead? or even if they did let him stay on?
User avatar #572 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
I do think they will help. The number of armed civilians for out numbers the number of military personnel, and thats not taking into account that the majority of military personnel won't fire on civilians and would join with the rebels.

And yes I do think that a revolution here would be able to bring in a great leader. If someone is able to rally and lead a revolution that is millions strong, then odds are they are a damn fine leader, and that person would stay in power as long as he follows the american rights because the rebels wont allow someone else to overthrow that person.
User avatar #607 - admiralen (09/19/2013) [-]
do you honestly think they would stay in power? the people think theyre gonna do amazing changes and such, but thats not feasible, they dont have that much to work with, so then the people gets mad and does a new rebellion since it worked so fine just recently
User avatar #379 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
They have, actually. F.B.I. can raid houses and kill people (and have) without due process, what's difficult is doing that without media notice, but that's the very reason the media gets bribed and owned by someone who wouldn't want that information getting out. So can the C.I.A., actually.

If someone starts violence it only stands to reason to react with violence, simple. Besides, how ELSE would you react to someone saying "Do this, or I will kill you"? And while it's true they are voted for by the people, it's also true that the government has become an "All Boys Club" in the last few years, only letting people in whom they choose to let in; they can also strong-arm other people out of elections and get more support through taking bribes and what-not, as they have in the past.
#79 - Life is fair because people disregard opportunities when they … 09/18/2013 on bill gates on life 0
#279 - Actually, the average user of Funnyjunk is 18-22 years old, mo…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
User avatar #305 - diblie (09/18/2013) [-]
The dilemma with discussing things is the headlong charge that those who don't bother to do their own research on the topic tend to go in That chance to learn, more often than not, is met with a stone wall of pre-conceived notions that one, if not both, party(s) sticks

To put it simply, there's far too much zealotry on either side for any philosophy to be exchanged or clarified in a casual conversation. Each individual tends to be polarized to an ideal with which they feel no need to change.

Additionally, i never once stated that because you know nothing of a topic you should never talk about it, it was a satirical take on the rampant misconceptions that a great deal of those in the comment sections seems to be parroting from the news.
#277 - How do you figure? 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
#273 - You make it sound like someone is going to run up and shoot th…  [+] (35 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan +2
User avatar #282 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
and thus get yourself killed
User avatar #287 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You'd rather live in an oppressive and tyrannical state than fight (and perhaps die) trying to make it better?

That's a very cowardly way of thinking.
User avatar #295 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
its not about that, its about not being a retard, your fucking government arent gonna go 1983 on your ass, and even if they did a gun wouldnt help
User avatar #353 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
And for the record, guns WOULD help, as there are more citizens than government officials and police, we would have far more man-power against them. And before you go on about tanks and planes and warships, it's true that they have those, but it's also true that a plane can't kick down your door; such an action takes people, and people are a lot more hesitant to do that when the risk involves getting a bullet in the chest
User avatar #381 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
why would a plane need to kick down a door? it would bomb your ass
User avatar #388 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Then they would be ruler of nothing, and that's counter-productive.

Furthermore, again, you're using the argument of "Just because they are stronger means we shouldn't try to fight back", and that's a very cowardly view.
User avatar #395 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
or they make an example out of you and enjoy ruling the rest of the scared sheep
User avatar #402 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
And yet if nobody caved in, they couldn't do that, could they?

You're STILL being very cowardly, you value your life over the principles of freedom and happiness, even of other people, and that speaks very ill of your character.
User avatar #405 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im being realistic, youre being dead, it helps no one to die pointlessly, but again, THEY ARENT MONSTERS, why dont any american get that, the government arent aliens, they are fucking people
#465 - Dlsqueak (09/18/2013) [-]
I would gladly give my life fighting tyranny in hopes that my children could live free.
User avatar #476 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you wont have any children, and if you do and act like this they will die with you
#486 - Dlsqueak (09/18/2013) [-]
Not necessarily, precautions could be taken to keep them safe (and would be taken). Life isn't black and white no matter how much you wish it to be so.
User avatar #494 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
i doubt you have the resources to do such things, and fighting the government isnt the way to go dude, every fucking rebellion ever except for maybe the original american one have thrown the country straight to hell and made it several times worse, and the american one worked cause the leaders of the country did it
User avatar #427 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all fucking people too.

Hitler was democratically elected, Stalin was given his seat by his fellow government officials, and the people raised Mao to the throne.

Our current government is not made up of monsters, and at no point since the founding of our nation have the people had need of an armed insurrection. The fact we have not needed it yet does not change the purpose behind the words written in our bill of rights to ensure our continued freedom. Nothing lasts forever, and everything changes, and the second amendment exists to give the American people the power to make those changes their bitch, and control their own destinies.

Redbullfanatic asked for reasons why a civilian would need an assault rifle, I gave an answer. And if assault rifles are so useless, why are insurgents in the middle east, armed with little more than Assault rifles and IED's, able to continue a war with the greatest military in the world for over 10 fucking years? The insurgents are a insignificant minority there, now imagine half the fucking nation armed and pissed off.

Summary? We don't need them now, but we need to have them to be prepared for when a day comes that we do need them.
User avatar #432 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you know why assault rifles are useless? CAUSE ITS MADE TO FUCKING KILL PEOPLE! IT HAS NO OTHER USE THAN FUCKING KILLING PEOPLE! ITS THE REASON SEVERAL MURDERERS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY KILLED MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE AT ONCE IN YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY
User avatar #439 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
I would disagree, given that every one of those mass murders have occurred in a "gun free zone". The only reason the death tolls were so high is that no-one else in the are was allowed to carry a weapon. That and near all of those mass murders you are referring to were done with handguns, or non-automatic rifles (meaning they were not AR's). When all law abiding citizens are forced to leave their guns behind. And you walk into one of those hippie "gun free zones" with a jacket full of extra clips, shooting unarmed civilians with a pistol or an assault rifle makes little difference.

Also, don't get your panties so bunched up. My argument was perfectly valid, and using caps to try and make your point seem more valid is rather childish. That, and them being efficient at killing people doesn't make my comment any less valid.
User avatar #440 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
there is literally no fucking point to owning an assault rifle unless for hobby or for being a killer, and i dont think its a good idea to make it easy for the killers cause you wanna feel like your dick is big
#458 - devildogpratt (09/18/2013) [-]
have any facts or are you just going to reply on name calling and 'muh feelins'?
User avatar #466 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
who are you? this conversation isnt with you, and please go ahead and give me some good reasons why civilians should own assault rifles
(btw protecting yourself from the government is a retarded argument and i dont take people who use it seriously)
User avatar #452 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
Petty insults only serve to further belittle you already weak argument. Ensured protection against foreign or domestic tyranny is a perfectly valid reason. The fact that you continually ignore everything I say makes this rather difficult but I will say it once more. Very few mass killings are carried out with assault rifles. The ones done with handguns tend to have higher casualty rates.

You are beginning to try my patience, your inability to respond to a statement properly makes having a discussion with you unpleasant. Either reply to what is said in a comment or don't use the reply button.
User avatar #456 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
i have replied to civilians owning assault rifles, theres simply no point, and dont say its to protect yourself from the government, really dude you dont even believe that yourself
User avatar #408 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You're not being realistic, you're being the exact reason why it's so easy to rule over people. I wouldn't be dying pointlessly, I would be dying standing by my principles, and I would rather die doing that than living without them.

You say that as if people aren't capable of evil.
User avatar #348 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
No need to get mad.

How do you know? Do you not see the way America is heading? The government and politicians are getting more and more bold in breaking laws and altering them in their favour and in more and more occasions are using brute force openly rather than legal means.

Furthermore, taking the approach of "Well, they're stronger, so we shouldn't even try" is STILL very cowardly, and if the rest of the world took that approach through-out history you'd find the entire world being dominated by a single man because nobody cared enough to tell him to screw off
User avatar #355 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you realize that people finds this over the top, if they start with doing shit like killing people and such people wont stand for it, but a revolution with guns wont help, besides politicians arent aliens, they are people chosen by people to rule
User avatar #531 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
What do you mean a revolution with guns won't help. If the government is going around killing people in broad daylight, and you go out there to protest peacefully, then odds are you are going to get shot, or at least locked so deep in prison that you never see the light of day again.

And to the politician argument, just because they are elected doesnt mean they have your opinions in mind. Any simple minded jackass can get up on stage and give a speech to appease the masses. That doesn't mean that they actually have any plans to carry out anything they ever said. And these days, most politicians only get into their positions through connections and family, putting them in the pocket of whoever got them there.
User avatar #534 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
what do you solve by having a revolution with violence, you get a new leader who took the lead by force or you get a bunch of asshats fighting each other for power, either way the country gets destabilized and the people suffer for it
User avatar #544 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
By that logic, what do you solve by sitting on your ass while the government begins to control every aspect of your life while having the power to place you in prison or even kill you for whatever they feel you did wrong?
User avatar #552 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you can work to change the land from the inside, join politics, try to work your way up the ladder to change things, seriously dude, look at all the countries that have had rebellions and see what happened after
(the usa rebellion against brittain wasnt the one were talking about btw, it was done by the leaders of the country who knew what they were doing)
User avatar #564 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Again, odds are, if the government is beginning to use violence against civilians, then they are not going to let some nobody come in and just change they way they do things by climbing the ladder. By this time, they would be damn well committed to keeping with the officials they have and not changing. And who's to say that whoever is spearheading thsi revolution has no knowledge of how to run a country. They could be brave enough to stand against tyranny and still be a able to lead.
User avatar #569 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
have anyone who spearheaded a revolution ever had that? and if they had did the people let them stay in power?
User avatar #570 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Honestly, not many. But saying that no revolutionary leaders will have political knowledge based on the past is like saying the US government will never turn tyrannical because it has never happened here. I would rather have the guns and not need them, than not have any guns when a day comes and I do need them.
User avatar #571 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
but even when the day comes the guns wont help, theyre just hollow promises.
and seriously dude, when you look at the population of your country, do you honestly think they would choose a good guy to lead? or even if they did let him stay on?
User avatar #572 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
I do think they will help. The number of armed civilians for out numbers the number of military personnel, and thats not taking into account that the majority of military personnel won't fire on civilians and would join with the rebels.

And yes I do think that a revolution here would be able to bring in a great leader. If someone is able to rally and lead a revolution that is millions strong, then odds are they are a damn fine leader, and that person would stay in power as long as he follows the american rights because the rebels wont allow someone else to overthrow that person.
User avatar #607 - admiralen (09/19/2013) [-]
do you honestly think they would stay in power? the people think theyre gonna do amazing changes and such, but thats not feasible, they dont have that much to work with, so then the people gets mad and does a new rebellion since it worked so fine just recently
User avatar #379 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
They have, actually. F.B.I. can raid houses and kill people (and have) without due process, what's difficult is doing that without media notice, but that's the very reason the media gets bribed and owned by someone who wouldn't want that information getting out. So can the C.I.A., actually.

If someone starts violence it only stands to reason to react with violence, simple. Besides, how ELSE would you react to someone saying "Do this, or I will kill you"? And while it's true they are voted for by the people, it's also true that the government has become an "All Boys Club" in the last few years, only letting people in whom they choose to let in; they can also strong-arm other people out of elections and get more support through taking bribes and what-not, as they have in the past.
#268 - Why? There's nothing wrong with having a desire to defend your…  [+] (37 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan +3
User avatar #269 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
explain to me how the fuck you would fight your government with your gun
User avatar #273 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You make it sound like someone is going to run up and shoot the whitehouse, but that's not how it works.

You would fight tyranny easily, simply by resisting it. However, at a certain point, many of those same tyrants stop caring about what you want to do and seek to enforce their will through threats of pain or death, I.E. having people knock on your door with guns. As a result, it only makes sense to answer them holding a gun of your own.
User avatar #282 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
and thus get yourself killed
User avatar #287 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You'd rather live in an oppressive and tyrannical state than fight (and perhaps die) trying to make it better?

That's a very cowardly way of thinking.
User avatar #295 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
its not about that, its about not being a retard, your fucking government arent gonna go 1983 on your ass, and even if they did a gun wouldnt help
User avatar #353 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
And for the record, guns WOULD help, as there are more citizens than government officials and police, we would have far more man-power against them. And before you go on about tanks and planes and warships, it's true that they have those, but it's also true that a plane can't kick down your door; such an action takes people, and people are a lot more hesitant to do that when the risk involves getting a bullet in the chest
User avatar #381 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
why would a plane need to kick down a door? it would bomb your ass
User avatar #388 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Then they would be ruler of nothing, and that's counter-productive.

Furthermore, again, you're using the argument of "Just because they are stronger means we shouldn't try to fight back", and that's a very cowardly view.
User avatar #395 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
or they make an example out of you and enjoy ruling the rest of the scared sheep
User avatar #402 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
And yet if nobody caved in, they couldn't do that, could they?

You're STILL being very cowardly, you value your life over the principles of freedom and happiness, even of other people, and that speaks very ill of your character.
User avatar #405 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im being realistic, youre being dead, it helps no one to die pointlessly, but again, THEY ARENT MONSTERS, why dont any american get that, the government arent aliens, they are fucking people
#465 - Dlsqueak (09/18/2013) [-]
I would gladly give my life fighting tyranny in hopes that my children could live free.
User avatar #476 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you wont have any children, and if you do and act like this they will die with you
#486 - Dlsqueak (09/18/2013) [-]
Not necessarily, precautions could be taken to keep them safe (and would be taken). Life isn't black and white no matter how much you wish it to be so.
User avatar #494 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
i doubt you have the resources to do such things, and fighting the government isnt the way to go dude, every fucking rebellion ever except for maybe the original american one have thrown the country straight to hell and made it several times worse, and the american one worked cause the leaders of the country did it
User avatar #427 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all fucking people too.

Hitler was democratically elected, Stalin was given his seat by his fellow government officials, and the people raised Mao to the throne.

Our current government is not made up of monsters, and at no point since the founding of our nation have the people had need of an armed insurrection. The fact we have not needed it yet does not change the purpose behind the words written in our bill of rights to ensure our continued freedom. Nothing lasts forever, and everything changes, and the second amendment exists to give the American people the power to make those changes their bitch, and control their own destinies.

Redbullfanatic asked for reasons why a civilian would need an assault rifle, I gave an answer. And if assault rifles are so useless, why are insurgents in the middle east, armed with little more than Assault rifles and IED's, able to continue a war with the greatest military in the world for over 10 fucking years? The insurgents are a insignificant minority there, now imagine half the fucking nation armed and pissed off.

Summary? We don't need them now, but we need to have them to be prepared for when a day comes that we do need them.
User avatar #432 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you know why assault rifles are useless? CAUSE ITS MADE TO FUCKING KILL PEOPLE! IT HAS NO OTHER USE THAN FUCKING KILLING PEOPLE! ITS THE REASON SEVERAL MURDERERS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY KILLED MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE AT ONCE IN YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY
User avatar #439 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
I would disagree, given that every one of those mass murders have occurred in a "gun free zone". The only reason the death tolls were so high is that no-one else in the are was allowed to carry a weapon. That and near all of those mass murders you are referring to were done with handguns, or non-automatic rifles (meaning they were not AR's). When all law abiding citizens are forced to leave their guns behind. And you walk into one of those hippie "gun free zones" with a jacket full of extra clips, shooting unarmed civilians with a pistol or an assault rifle makes little difference.

Also, don't get your panties so bunched up. My argument was perfectly valid, and using caps to try and make your point seem more valid is rather childish. That, and them being efficient at killing people doesn't make my comment any less valid.
User avatar #440 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
there is literally no fucking point to owning an assault rifle unless for hobby or for being a killer, and i dont think its a good idea to make it easy for the killers cause you wanna feel like your dick is big
#458 - devildogpratt (09/18/2013) [-]
have any facts or are you just going to reply on name calling and 'muh feelins'?
User avatar #466 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
who are you? this conversation isnt with you, and please go ahead and give me some good reasons why civilians should own assault rifles
(btw protecting yourself from the government is a retarded argument and i dont take people who use it seriously)
User avatar #452 - thebannedzombie (09/18/2013) [-]
Petty insults only serve to further belittle you already weak argument. Ensured protection against foreign or domestic tyranny is a perfectly valid reason. The fact that you continually ignore everything I say makes this rather difficult but I will say it once more. Very few mass killings are carried out with assault rifles. The ones done with handguns tend to have higher casualty rates.

You are beginning to try my patience, your inability to respond to a statement properly makes having a discussion with you unpleasant. Either reply to what is said in a comment or don't use the reply button.
User avatar #456 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
i have replied to civilians owning assault rifles, theres simply no point, and dont say its to protect yourself from the government, really dude you dont even believe that yourself
User avatar #408 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You're not being realistic, you're being the exact reason why it's so easy to rule over people. I wouldn't be dying pointlessly, I would be dying standing by my principles, and I would rather die doing that than living without them.

You say that as if people aren't capable of evil.
User avatar #348 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
No need to get mad.

How do you know? Do you not see the way America is heading? The government and politicians are getting more and more bold in breaking laws and altering them in their favour and in more and more occasions are using brute force openly rather than legal means.

Furthermore, taking the approach of "Well, they're stronger, so we shouldn't even try" is STILL very cowardly, and if the rest of the world took that approach through-out history you'd find the entire world being dominated by a single man because nobody cared enough to tell him to screw off
User avatar #355 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you realize that people finds this over the top, if they start with doing shit like killing people and such people wont stand for it, but a revolution with guns wont help, besides politicians arent aliens, they are people chosen by people to rule
User avatar #531 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
What do you mean a revolution with guns won't help. If the government is going around killing people in broad daylight, and you go out there to protest peacefully, then odds are you are going to get shot, or at least locked so deep in prison that you never see the light of day again.

And to the politician argument, just because they are elected doesnt mean they have your opinions in mind. Any simple minded jackass can get up on stage and give a speech to appease the masses. That doesn't mean that they actually have any plans to carry out anything they ever said. And these days, most politicians only get into their positions through connections and family, putting them in the pocket of whoever got them there.
User avatar #534 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
what do you solve by having a revolution with violence, you get a new leader who took the lead by force or you get a bunch of asshats fighting each other for power, either way the country gets destabilized and the people suffer for it
User avatar #544 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
By that logic, what do you solve by sitting on your ass while the government begins to control every aspect of your life while having the power to place you in prison or even kill you for whatever they feel you did wrong?
User avatar #552 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you can work to change the land from the inside, join politics, try to work your way up the ladder to change things, seriously dude, look at all the countries that have had rebellions and see what happened after
(the usa rebellion against brittain wasnt the one were talking about btw, it was done by the leaders of the country who knew what they were doing)
User avatar #564 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Again, odds are, if the government is beginning to use violence against civilians, then they are not going to let some nobody come in and just change they way they do things by climbing the ladder. By this time, they would be damn well committed to keeping with the officials they have and not changing. And who's to say that whoever is spearheading thsi revolution has no knowledge of how to run a country. They could be brave enough to stand against tyranny and still be a able to lead.
User avatar #569 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
have anyone who spearheaded a revolution ever had that? and if they had did the people let them stay in power?
User avatar #570 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
Honestly, not many. But saying that no revolutionary leaders will have political knowledge based on the past is like saying the US government will never turn tyrannical because it has never happened here. I would rather have the guns and not need them, than not have any guns when a day comes and I do need them.
User avatar #571 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
but even when the day comes the guns wont help, theyre just hollow promises.
and seriously dude, when you look at the population of your country, do you honestly think they would choose a good guy to lead? or even if they did let him stay on?
User avatar #572 - stanleys (09/18/2013) [-]
I do think they will help. The number of armed civilians for out numbers the number of military personnel, and thats not taking into account that the majority of military personnel won't fire on civilians and would join with the rebels.

And yes I do think that a revolution here would be able to bring in a great leader. If someone is able to rally and lead a revolution that is millions strong, then odds are they are a damn fine leader, and that person would stay in power as long as he follows the american rights because the rebels wont allow someone else to overthrow that person.
User avatar #607 - admiralen (09/19/2013) [-]
do you honestly think they would stay in power? the people think theyre gonna do amazing changes and such, but thats not feasible, they dont have that much to work with, so then the people gets mad and does a new rebellion since it worked so fine just recently
User avatar #379 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
They have, actually. F.B.I. can raid houses and kill people (and have) without due process, what's difficult is doing that without media notice, but that's the very reason the media gets bribed and owned by someone who wouldn't want that information getting out. So can the C.I.A., actually.

If someone starts violence it only stands to reason to react with violence, simple. Besides, how ELSE would you react to someone saying "Do this, or I will kill you"? And while it's true they are voted for by the people, it's also true that the government has become an "All Boys Club" in the last few years, only letting people in whom they choose to let in; they can also strong-arm other people out of elections and get more support through taking bribes and what-not, as they have in the past.
#265 - That's not how a shotgun works (At least not every type). … 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
#60 - It's true that you cannot control things like that, but you ca… 09/18/2013 on bill gates on life 0
#211 - May I get a source for that?  [+] (5 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
User avatar #459 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
It's pretty easy to find if you Google "UK gun ban", but here's a source anyway.

www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited"

etc, etc. Check the "Gun Regulation" section.
User avatar #519 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
In a debate, it's common courtesy to get your own evidence rather than make your opponent get it for you.

But indeed you are correct, I accidentally misread it as an acronym for 'Europe' for some reason.... Sorry about that.

But my point still stands. As I understand it, crime and even gun-murders are still on the rise and many people are dissatisfied with the new law.
User avatar #533 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
I just assumed the UK gun ban was common knowledge, at least for people interested in the gun control debate.

I don't feel like getting into the debate and I didn't intend to refute your point, only provide a well-known counterexample of a European country in which guns are actually banned.
User avatar #542 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I only recently got into it, actually. I'm a Canadian, it's not so nearly as large an issue here.
User avatar #545 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
Fair enough.
#188 - If you can't handle a gun maturely, you shouldn't be handling … 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
#47 - I never said that, what I said was if you let yourself get tre… 09/18/2013 on bill gates on life 0
#182 - Indeed, because I am an amateur, but even the guys at the shoo… 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
#25 - Seems easy enough. That's just in Sweden, and you literally ju…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
User avatar #28 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
also you have to lock your gun in a weapons safe whenever you arent using it and it must be loaded on site when youre gonna shoot
User avatar #26 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
except if the leader of the gunclub doesnt consider you mature to have one you wont get one, and this is just handguns and hunting rifles that are barely semi automatic
User avatar #188 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
If you can't handle a gun maturely, you shouldn't be handling them at all. You seem to be trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it has to be.

Actually, you don't have to lock your gun up at all, it's just recommended. Furthermore, you can load it anywhere, it's just a rule (for a shooting range) that it must be unloaded UNTIL you shoot as to avoid accidents.
#24 - If you honestly believe that, you have never shot a gun. …  [+] (38 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
User avatar #27 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
ever figured that you just suck? ive never had any problems firing guns, EVER.
my dad has tons of different kinds of guns and lets me shoot them every now and then, and i dont shoot often, but its always been easy
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Indeed, because I am an amateur, but even the guys at the shooting club, who have been doing it for 20 years, also missed from time to time.

Then you should sign up for a sporting event, because if you can hit 20/20 every time, you're a prodigy. (Unless of course you're just a liar)
#134 - Womens Study Major (09/18/2013) [-]
ever shot paper targets @ 50 yards with a handgun? If so please tell me your results and what pistol you used.
User avatar #144 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
do you actually think you would have to shoot anything at that range with a handgun? if you do youre not very clever and would just end up getting shot by people with guns better suited for the situation
User avatar #30 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
>I have no problems doing something therefore everyone else must be the same
That doesn't exactly make sense bro. Besides, it's been proven time and time again that in high-pressure situations, your accuracy with a gun goes to shit because you're in a life-or-death situation.
User avatar #32 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
ive never met anyone who had problems firing a gun except for chicks who never saw one before, its not rocket science, its quite easy to see where it will hit, youre just being arrogant in thinking youre not below the rest
User avatar #34 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Well now you're just expanding your assumption from that first comment, which is still wrong. Seriously, ask any trained professional about what happens when there's actually people shooting back and they'll tell you that shit hits the fan. And I know I'm not as good as those who shoot regularly because I don't feel the need to become proficient with a firearm; where in the hell did I say that I wasn't below average with a firearm and why does that matter given what I told you? Maybe focus on the point I'm actually making instead of making assumptions next time bro.

dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/training-for-high-stress-self-defense-shooting-at-home/

Here's just a basic article in which a professional details just a couple reasons as to why and how you need to train for high-stress situations.
User avatar #36 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
actually said you suck since you found it hard hitting your target
User avatar #37 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Fucking everyone does when they think they could die at any second you fool. Have you been paying any attention at all?
User avatar #39 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you been in many positions where people were shooting at you?
User avatar #41 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Have you? Neither have I, but those who have all say that shooting at those who are returning fire is far, far harder than shooting at inanimate targets due to all the adrenaline and fear associated with life-or-death situations. But you'd know this if you actually bothered to do some research on the subject.
User avatar #43 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
do some research, youre just assuming from random people who have talked, swat and such are specifically trained to be able to keep cool under preassure and soldiers in the army have such training, even if its not always effective, you shouldnt talk about such things as fact until you have lived through it though
User avatar #44 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
That's why they need to be trained to do so you fucking twat. It's not anywhere near as simple to just point and shoot when you may possibly die while doing so, and you even admit that the training isn't always effective.

And saying that you can't talk about something until it's happened to you breeds ignorance. By that logic, only rape victims can have opinions on rape, only murderers can judge the actions of murderers, and everything that you've haven't directly experienced never happened.
User avatar #46 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
how did it even evolve to this? we started talking about how you couldnt aim when you started shooting guns.
besides rape and aiming under pressure are two different things
User avatar #48 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
It hasn't evolved, you've just been missing the point this whole time. And by your logic the rape thing makes fine sense, you just don't see it that way because apparently your logical reasoning skills aren't exactly up to par.
User avatar #49 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this coming from the retard comparing rape and shooting under pressure? besides, its all personal, everyone reacts differently. some people might become very cool even without training
User avatar #51 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Fool, I never compared the two, I said that the examples I gave you are logically equivalent by your own standard to shooting a gun under pressure because you said that you can't properly judge something until it's happened to you. Hopefully if you backed up and looked at how fucked that kind of worldview is then you would finally see how what I said makes sense.

And the "some people might be good at it, so let's just assume that everyone could be and call it a day" argument is the same thing you've been using, which is, and try to stay with me because this is the third time I've had to say it, wrong. Just because you or a couple other people can do something doesn't mean that you're representative of the population at large. We have statistics for that, and those tell us that the typical person can expect their shooting to go to absolute shit under duress.
User avatar #53 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this is my point, you speak like you know for sure and that everyone is like you, and then you say that me thinking the same thing is retarded, really dude, this is not something you can know except for if youve been there or from hearsay, and if youve just heard you know nothing of it, in fact the people who speak out loudly about it are the minority and you shouldnt judge it based on such facts
User avatar #191 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
I'm listening, but what you're saying is incorrect. You'd know about how hard it is to shoot under duress if you'd ever actually talked to people who've had to do it. Evidence shows us that it's by no means a cakewalk no matter how well you think you'd do under pressure.
User avatar #193 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
youve talked to extremely few, youve seen extremely few talk about it online and such, why would you know better anyway? and again what ive been saying is that its not something you can put down in stone cause EVERYONE are different
User avatar #150 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
You can't pick and choose which arguments do and don't have concrete truth to them. This argument isn't esoteric; it's backed by legitimate facts. If you plug your ears and scream that you don't believe them when they're backed by proof then you're still wrong, you're just ignorant as well as wrong.
User avatar #153 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this argument isnt backed by legitimate facts, and theres to many surrounding changing factors to be able to be any kind of sure, you can whine how im not listening all you want but you arent listening either
User avatar #117 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Except there's a truth to everything that's rooted in fact. You can't just throw up your hands and say that everything we do is all guesses because that's simply not the case. There are definite truths in the world, even if you don't want to believe it.
User avatar #141 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this is not one of them
User avatar #81 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
But we do form opinions about what happened even though we haven't directly experienced it right? What you're saying is that even though you didn't experience what the other person went through, you have to go off of what they've told you in order to form a valid opinion, correct?
User avatar #84 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im saying neither of us can form a valid opinion with what we have, all we can do is guess based on the facts before us, but they barely mean anything since so few people have to fight like that and we dont have any good people to compare against
User avatar #68 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
But we invented the justice system to provide a means of aptly judging those who have done things that the rest of us have not, correct? Isn't that bad though, considering that you can't have an opinion on something if you haven't directly experienced it? How can you be certain that murder causes pain and suffering when you yourself haven't done it? I mean, according to your logic, the justice system is profoundly flawed due to it not being run by murderers and rapists.
User avatar #72 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
we judge them based on what happened to their victims, not based upon what its like to do it
User avatar #66 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
And taking a life by shooting someone doesn't cause pain and misery? Do go on.
User avatar #67 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
thats not what were talking about, were talking about shooting under pressure, taking the life or protecting yourself isnt the issue.
and thats why humanity invented the justice system, its ok to shoot someone trying to kill you cause its self defence
User avatar #64 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
And you've never been anywhere close to rape, or murdering someone, or stealing from someone, or anything else that you haven't done. Therefore, you and everyone else can only form an opinion on the things that they have directly experienced, which leads to things like only murderers being able to fairly judge the actions of murderers, rapists only being able to judge the actions of rapists, etc. and everyone else can't judge them because they don't know what it's like to do such awful things. See what happens when you live by that axiom? The answer to that question is "nothing good" because I'm guessing it's stumped you.
User avatar #65 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
those things arent even close to that, one is how you would react under pressure and anothing is judging someone who did something wrong, i dont need to know what its like, i know that it causes pain and misery
User avatar #62 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Well by that logic then nobody can form an opinion aside from those who've had it happen to them directly, which is fucking stupid and completely flawed, which you would see if you were capable of critical reasoning.
User avatar #63 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
no, you can form an opinion on things relevant to stuff youve lived through, but youve never even been close to anything like this
User avatar #60 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
And you've heard from most? Really? You know you would have had to listen to thousands upon thousands of people for that right? The reason that I can use facts to validate an argument is because that's how debate works fool.

I've heard from people who get paid to know their shit about this stuff and I've done background research as well. How about you prove me wrong instead of supplanting facts with your own opinion?
User avatar #61 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im not saying i have heard from most, im saying you shouldnt act like you know when you dont
User avatar #56 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
I don't know for sure that everyone is like me (which, coincidentally, would be a fine assumption by your standards because that's pretty much the only "point" you've been trying to make here), but I do know what statistics and professionals have told me, which is what I've been reiterating to your dumb ass.

Just to let you know, "you can['t] know except for if you've been there or from hearsay" and "If you've just heard you know nothing about it." are contradictory statements, but good try. And keep in mind that when you say stupid shit like you can't judge something based on facts then you've just identified yourself as ignorant.

Also, grammar and capitalization are important. No one like awful, run-on sentences that make no logical sense.
User avatar #59 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you know whats worse? people who dont read or answer what you have to say cause theyre to wound up in grammar. i dont consider you worth me fixing up my sentences.
and youve read and heard from a FEW.
not from even most or many, youve heard from a few and you make assumptions like theyre facts
#22 - You seem to have misread my comment, so I will reiterate it fo…  [+] (12 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
User avatar #209 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
Guns of almost any kind are basically illegal and practically unobtainable in the UK.
User avatar #211 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
May I get a source for that?
User avatar #459 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
It's pretty easy to find if you Google "UK gun ban", but here's a source anyway.

www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited"

etc, etc. Check the "Gun Regulation" section.
User avatar #519 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
In a debate, it's common courtesy to get your own evidence rather than make your opponent get it for you.

But indeed you are correct, I accidentally misread it as an acronym for 'Europe' for some reason.... Sorry about that.

But my point still stands. As I understand it, crime and even gun-murders are still on the rise and many people are dissatisfied with the new law.
User avatar #533 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
I just assumed the UK gun ban was common knowledge, at least for people interested in the gun control debate.

I don't feel like getting into the debate and I didn't intend to refute your point, only provide a well-known counterexample of a European country in which guns are actually banned.
User avatar #542 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I only recently got into it, actually. I'm a Canadian, it's not so nearly as large an issue here.
User avatar #545 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
Fair enough.
User avatar #23 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
getting a licence for assault rifles aint easy dude, in order to own your own gun in sweden you have to have been in a gun club for about 2-3 years and have a hunting licence
User avatar #25 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Seems easy enough. That's just in Sweden, and you literally just have to sit around and be part of a club and have a license that is also easy to get.

Besides, unless you really WERE planning to have a shoot out, I don't see why anyone would be against having those two things for extended periods of time; I know I would.
User avatar #28 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
also you have to lock your gun in a weapons safe whenever you arent using it and it must be loaded on site when youre gonna shoot
User avatar #26 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
except if the leader of the gunclub doesnt consider you mature to have one you wont get one, and this is just handguns and hunting rifles that are barely semi automatic
User avatar #188 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
If you can't handle a gun maturely, you shouldn't be handling them at all. You seem to be trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it has to be.

Actually, you don't have to lock your gun up at all, it's just recommended. Furthermore, you can load it anywhere, it's just a rule (for a shooting range) that it must be unloaded UNTIL you shoot as to avoid accidents.
#14 - You get exactly what you work for. If you choose to work under…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/18/2013 on bill gates on life 0
#27 - infernis has deleted their comment.
User avatar #47 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I never said that, what I said was if you let yourself get treated badly, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
User avatar #15 - joekerr (09/18/2013) [-]
You don't get to know your boss after you got employed. I agree however that one should react in the way you implied: Find another job. But you can't leave that job w/ the idiot-boss until you got something else safe. I definetaly prefer an idiot boss over being unemployed. On the other hand, there are people who do not even have this choice, as their qualifications are way too low.

60k p. a. is luck and not in your power - i am talking about normal people, no geniuses and/or inheritance people. I was talking about your point ;)

I was talking about that leave-option you mentioned. That's not possible for workers in the industry and if they do, they cant come back. It's naive.

If you feel like a slave, just leave the job. Bill Gates adresses students.

With this description I honestly had those opportunists in mind, that always kind of cheat their way through and use every option available to achieve this (most extreme case ofc).

Well yes, ofc. I didn't think of seasonal workers. I thought of the possibility of taking a 1-3 month leave at companies like the BCG
#13 - I honestly due believe people should be allowed to own whateve…  [+] (30 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan +5
User avatar #290 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
The thing is point number 4 is selfish

Although you can safely have a gun, it then allows everyone to have a gun, and some people shouldn't have such easy access.

An analogy is like cocaine. I can quite happily take cocaine a few times a year safely, however I recognse that it should be illegal because if it was made legal it sets a precedent, so many would think it's ok to take , some people couldn't handle it, the effect on society as a whole is negative.

So I am happy for my own personal "freedom" in this case to be infringed because I can see the wider context, that I live as part of a society and society's interests are more important than one persons
User avatar #297 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
So I should have my rights denied because it may hurt another person's feelings? Or they may not be able to handle the right responsibly? That's not my fault, it's the fault of their background and culture and themselves for not educating them on such a matter.

Everyone SHOULD be able to own a gun, provided they are a legal citizen with no criminal record or mental disorder
User avatar #304 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
OK , well what if you were the only person in America who wanted to own a gun ... ?

At what point does the majority rule take effect , 51%

If I lived in America and saw that guns on a whole were a detriment to society I would question the need for you to own a gun.

Because by you saying you're rights shouldn't be denied, you're openly saying that the mass shootings and 10,000 homicides are justified for you to own a gun.

User avatar #362 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Then I should own one; just because someone doesn't take advantage of their rights doesn't mean mine should be denied.

The majority rule IS in effect, they just choose not to own one much like I choose to do so.

Except guns are not a detriment, as if they were, we wouldn't have them at all. But we do for purposes of war and battle, they DO have their uses even in civilian life.

And by saying that nobody should have a gun, you're saying that you would prefer to leave it entirely on circumstances; such as when a woman is raped by a man because he's 100 pounds heavier, or when a teenager knifes up a school because nobody can get close to him and nobody wants to because he has a bloody knife. Just because some people go nuts doesn't mean every person should have their rights revoked. (And for the record, if you WANT to start killing people, you will; having a gun or not won't make a single difference, it just makes it easier).
User avatar #369 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
I am saying if I was to vote, I would vote against them as is my right, and the guns were made illegal it would be my right to live in a country without guns

Guns can be a detriment, there are pros and cons , you must accept that ? I can see that they can do good , and can do bad, and in my opinion which I have formed looking at evidence there are more cons than pros

I am not talking about hypothetical scenarios , we can go back and forth with those for pro and con, all I am saying is that you cannot be like the rest of the idiots who think there aren't any negative aspects.

There needs to be an address of these negative aspect instead of pretending they don't exist, because it's a real immoral stance to take to ignore any evidence that you disagree with
User avatar #386 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
It is within your rights to live safely, but you do not have a right to take away another person's rights.

Of course I do, I'm just saying that guns are part of a process, and that process can only lead to higher things. Guns are no greater a detriment than warships are.

Are you kidding me? Recently, the ONLY thing people have been addressing is the negative aspect; I have yet to look on the news and see a "Pro-Gun Guy" who is NOT going against the interviewer.
User avatar #409 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
But it's the interviewer who is trying to get them to admit that there is a problem which needs addressing

Like Piers Morgan, three people came on the show to instead of talk about solutions they were defending a system which is broken, at least ackowlege a problem and take steps to fix it .

Why not just have hand guns be legal or shot guns, they can defend you in the home and on the street ?
User avatar #415 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
There is a problem that needs addressing, but it's not taking rights away, and that's the point many of those same interviewers try to make.

They can, but criminals don't care about laws and will get guns much more suited for killing rather than defense, and it's up to me to defend myself accordingly. Furthermore, that doesn't defend me from the government, which is what a militia is made-for in the first place.
User avatar #420 - PubLandlord (09/18/2013) [-]
I can understand the criminal aspect, that is a fair and valid point


The government tyranny bit is so asinine, that's the sort of tin foil hat stuff, I mean really even including the need to own a gun to "protect yourself from the government" just doesn't have any place in the debate.

Looking at the army , size of government , western world, the UN , the EU all the comparisons people like ALex Jones make to Germany Russia and China are so wildly out of context

User avatar #423 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I didn't include it myself, it was included in the rights of the constitution and is one of the reasons it's there in the first-place, I was simply repeating it. Even so, saying it's impossible for a government to try and dominate its citizens seems a bit naive Especially considering the laws and regulations that have already been broken by the government
User avatar #605 - PubLandlord (09/19/2013) [-]
But thinking you're somehow going to all rise up against the government and fight them on the streets seems pretty ridiculous
User avatar #606 - captainfuckitall (09/19/2013) [-]
And if they did so, what else would you propose?
User avatar #614 - PubLandlord (09/19/2013) [-]
Well I would imagine going up against a country that spends more on their military than the next 10 countries combined i wouldn't be easy

It seems pretty stupid to be trying to defend yourselves agains ta possible dystopian future when you're currently living in one and doing nothing to address it
User avatar #616 - captainfuckitall (09/19/2013) [-]
That's the point. Besides, just because something may be more powerful than you does not mean you shouldn't fight against it.
User avatar #622 - PubLandlord (09/20/2013) [-]
So you're saying I should start arming myself to fight the US army on the off chance they attack the UK

User avatar #630 - captainfuckitall (09/20/2013) [-]
Or anyone else who may threaten your life and well-being
User avatar #20 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
please tell me how the countries in europe were guns are regulated are oppressed
User avatar #22 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You seem to have misread my comment, so I will reiterate it for you:

"Every single instance of a government taking away arms from its people has resulted in oppression".

It's true that guns are regulated greatly in Europe, but regulation and banning are not the same thing. To my knowledge, you still actually CAN get assault rifles there provided you have the license for it. (That is, depending upon the country, due to political reasons)
User avatar #209 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
Guns of almost any kind are basically illegal and practically unobtainable in the UK.
User avatar #211 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
May I get a source for that?
User avatar #459 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
It's pretty easy to find if you Google "UK gun ban", but here's a source anyway.

www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited"
"In the United Kingdom, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited"

etc, etc. Check the "Gun Regulation" section.
User avatar #519 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
In a debate, it's common courtesy to get your own evidence rather than make your opponent get it for you.

But indeed you are correct, I accidentally misread it as an acronym for 'Europe' for some reason.... Sorry about that.

But my point still stands. As I understand it, crime and even gun-murders are still on the rise and many people are dissatisfied with the new law.
User avatar #533 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
I just assumed the UK gun ban was common knowledge, at least for people interested in the gun control debate.

I don't feel like getting into the debate and I didn't intend to refute your point, only provide a well-known counterexample of a European country in which guns are actually banned.
User avatar #542 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I only recently got into it, actually. I'm a Canadian, it's not so nearly as large an issue here.
User avatar #545 - Ruspanic (09/18/2013) [-]
Fair enough.
User avatar #23 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
getting a licence for assault rifles aint easy dude, in order to own your own gun in sweden you have to have been in a gun club for about 2-3 years and have a hunting licence
User avatar #25 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Seems easy enough. That's just in Sweden, and you literally just have to sit around and be part of a club and have a license that is also easy to get.

Besides, unless you really WERE planning to have a shoot out, I don't see why anyone would be against having those two things for extended periods of time; I know I would.
User avatar #28 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
also you have to lock your gun in a weapons safe whenever you arent using it and it must be loaded on site when youre gonna shoot
User avatar #26 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
except if the leader of the gunclub doesnt consider you mature to have one you wont get one, and this is just handguns and hunting rifles that are barely semi automatic
User avatar #188 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
If you can't handle a gun maturely, you shouldn't be handling them at all. You seem to be trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it has to be.

Actually, you don't have to lock your gun up at all, it's just recommended. Furthermore, you can load it anywhere, it's just a rule (for a shooting range) that it must be unloaded UNTIL you shoot as to avoid accidents.
#12 - As stated above, automatic guns are for people who can't shoot…  [+] (40 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
User avatar #21 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
its not hard to shoot lol, its easy as fuck, guns have advanced to such a place that if you simply know where to point the pipe and pull the trigger you will hit your target
User avatar #24 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
If you honestly believe that, you have never shot a gun.

I went to a shooting range with my father, had his shotgun and was shooting at clay pigeons. Even AFTER I actually knew what I was doing and getting tips by experts, I still only got 17 out of 24, and that was with the slowest moving, straightest flying targets. After I went over to slightly faster, more random targets my score dropped down to 12; and even those targets were about half as fast as a regular person and still didn't zig-zag. I never even tried the faster ones because I knew I would not be able to hit them. After that I fired off a revolver: 6/20, the gun rockets back, is outrageously loud, and even aiming perfectly well I could barely hit a steel plate (yes, this was when they were perfectly still).

Why is it so hard to aim? Because point a nozzle at someone and firing SEEMS easy enough, and sure, a few feet away it is easy, but after going a bit more to 10, 20, 30 feet, you see very clearly that just being an inch too close or an inch too far or an inch this way or an inch that way (and often times less than that) is the difference between hitting and missing your target entirely. If gun really were as easy as you think they are to shoot, trust me, Assault Rifles would have never been invented.
User avatar #27 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
ever figured that you just suck? ive never had any problems firing guns, EVER.
my dad has tons of different kinds of guns and lets me shoot them every now and then, and i dont shoot often, but its always been easy
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Indeed, because I am an amateur, but even the guys at the shooting club, who have been doing it for 20 years, also missed from time to time.

Then you should sign up for a sporting event, because if you can hit 20/20 every time, you're a prodigy. (Unless of course you're just a liar)
#134 - Womens Study Major (09/18/2013) [-]
ever shot paper targets @ 50 yards with a handgun? If so please tell me your results and what pistol you used.
User avatar #144 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
do you actually think you would have to shoot anything at that range with a handgun? if you do youre not very clever and would just end up getting shot by people with guns better suited for the situation
User avatar #30 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
>I have no problems doing something therefore everyone else must be the same
That doesn't exactly make sense bro. Besides, it's been proven time and time again that in high-pressure situations, your accuracy with a gun goes to shit because you're in a life-or-death situation.
User avatar #32 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
ive never met anyone who had problems firing a gun except for chicks who never saw one before, its not rocket science, its quite easy to see where it will hit, youre just being arrogant in thinking youre not below the rest
User avatar #34 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Well now you're just expanding your assumption from that first comment, which is still wrong. Seriously, ask any trained professional about what happens when there's actually people shooting back and they'll tell you that shit hits the fan. And I know I'm not as good as those who shoot regularly because I don't feel the need to become proficient with a firearm; where in the hell did I say that I wasn't below average with a firearm and why does that matter given what I told you? Maybe focus on the point I'm actually making instead of making assumptions next time bro.

dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/training-for-high-stress-self-defense-shooting-at-home/

Here's just a basic article in which a professional details just a couple reasons as to why and how you need to train for high-stress situations.
User avatar #36 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
actually said you suck since you found it hard hitting your target
User avatar #37 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Fucking everyone does when they think they could die at any second you fool. Have you been paying any attention at all?
User avatar #39 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you been in many positions where people were shooting at you?
User avatar #41 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Have you? Neither have I, but those who have all say that shooting at those who are returning fire is far, far harder than shooting at inanimate targets due to all the adrenaline and fear associated with life-or-death situations. But you'd know this if you actually bothered to do some research on the subject.
User avatar #43 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
do some research, youre just assuming from random people who have talked, swat and such are specifically trained to be able to keep cool under preassure and soldiers in the army have such training, even if its not always effective, you shouldnt talk about such things as fact until you have lived through it though
User avatar #44 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
That's why they need to be trained to do so you fucking twat. It's not anywhere near as simple to just point and shoot when you may possibly die while doing so, and you even admit that the training isn't always effective.

And saying that you can't talk about something until it's happened to you breeds ignorance. By that logic, only rape victims can have opinions on rape, only murderers can judge the actions of murderers, and everything that you've haven't directly experienced never happened.
User avatar #46 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
how did it even evolve to this? we started talking about how you couldnt aim when you started shooting guns.
besides rape and aiming under pressure are two different things
User avatar #48 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
It hasn't evolved, you've just been missing the point this whole time. And by your logic the rape thing makes fine sense, you just don't see it that way because apparently your logical reasoning skills aren't exactly up to par.
User avatar #49 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this coming from the retard comparing rape and shooting under pressure? besides, its all personal, everyone reacts differently. some people might become very cool even without training
User avatar #51 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Fool, I never compared the two, I said that the examples I gave you are logically equivalent by your own standard to shooting a gun under pressure because you said that you can't properly judge something until it's happened to you. Hopefully if you backed up and looked at how fucked that kind of worldview is then you would finally see how what I said makes sense.

And the "some people might be good at it, so let's just assume that everyone could be and call it a day" argument is the same thing you've been using, which is, and try to stay with me because this is the third time I've had to say it, wrong. Just because you or a couple other people can do something doesn't mean that you're representative of the population at large. We have statistics for that, and those tell us that the typical person can expect their shooting to go to absolute shit under duress.
User avatar #53 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this is my point, you speak like you know for sure and that everyone is like you, and then you say that me thinking the same thing is retarded, really dude, this is not something you can know except for if youve been there or from hearsay, and if youve just heard you know nothing of it, in fact the people who speak out loudly about it are the minority and you shouldnt judge it based on such facts
User avatar #191 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
I'm listening, but what you're saying is incorrect. You'd know about how hard it is to shoot under duress if you'd ever actually talked to people who've had to do it. Evidence shows us that it's by no means a cakewalk no matter how well you think you'd do under pressure.
User avatar #193 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
youve talked to extremely few, youve seen extremely few talk about it online and such, why would you know better anyway? and again what ive been saying is that its not something you can put down in stone cause EVERYONE are different
User avatar #150 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
You can't pick and choose which arguments do and don't have concrete truth to them. This argument isn't esoteric; it's backed by legitimate facts. If you plug your ears and scream that you don't believe them when they're backed by proof then you're still wrong, you're just ignorant as well as wrong.
User avatar #153 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this argument isnt backed by legitimate facts, and theres to many surrounding changing factors to be able to be any kind of sure, you can whine how im not listening all you want but you arent listening either
User avatar #117 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Except there's a truth to everything that's rooted in fact. You can't just throw up your hands and say that everything we do is all guesses because that's simply not the case. There are definite truths in the world, even if you don't want to believe it.
User avatar #141 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
this is not one of them
User avatar #81 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
But we do form opinions about what happened even though we haven't directly experienced it right? What you're saying is that even though you didn't experience what the other person went through, you have to go off of what they've told you in order to form a valid opinion, correct?
User avatar #84 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im saying neither of us can form a valid opinion with what we have, all we can do is guess based on the facts before us, but they barely mean anything since so few people have to fight like that and we dont have any good people to compare against
User avatar #68 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
But we invented the justice system to provide a means of aptly judging those who have done things that the rest of us have not, correct? Isn't that bad though, considering that you can't have an opinion on something if you haven't directly experienced it? How can you be certain that murder causes pain and suffering when you yourself haven't done it? I mean, according to your logic, the justice system is profoundly flawed due to it not being run by murderers and rapists.
User avatar #72 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
we judge them based on what happened to their victims, not based upon what its like to do it
User avatar #66 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
And taking a life by shooting someone doesn't cause pain and misery? Do go on.
User avatar #67 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
thats not what were talking about, were talking about shooting under pressure, taking the life or protecting yourself isnt the issue.
and thats why humanity invented the justice system, its ok to shoot someone trying to kill you cause its self defence
User avatar #64 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
And you've never been anywhere close to rape, or murdering someone, or stealing from someone, or anything else that you haven't done. Therefore, you and everyone else can only form an opinion on the things that they have directly experienced, which leads to things like only murderers being able to fairly judge the actions of murderers, rapists only being able to judge the actions of rapists, etc. and everyone else can't judge them because they don't know what it's like to do such awful things. See what happens when you live by that axiom? The answer to that question is "nothing good" because I'm guessing it's stumped you.
User avatar #65 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
those things arent even close to that, one is how you would react under pressure and anothing is judging someone who did something wrong, i dont need to know what its like, i know that it causes pain and misery
User avatar #62 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
Well by that logic then nobody can form an opinion aside from those who've had it happen to them directly, which is fucking stupid and completely flawed, which you would see if you were capable of critical reasoning.
User avatar #63 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
no, you can form an opinion on things relevant to stuff youve lived through, but youve never even been close to anything like this
User avatar #60 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
And you've heard from most? Really? You know you would have had to listen to thousands upon thousands of people for that right? The reason that I can use facts to validate an argument is because that's how debate works fool.

I've heard from people who get paid to know their shit about this stuff and I've done background research as well. How about you prove me wrong instead of supplanting facts with your own opinion?
User avatar #61 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
im not saying i have heard from most, im saying you shouldnt act like you know when you dont
User avatar #56 - jrondeau (09/18/2013) [-]
I don't know for sure that everyone is like me (which, coincidentally, would be a fine assumption by your standards because that's pretty much the only "point" you've been trying to make here), but I do know what statistics and professionals have told me, which is what I've been reiterating to your dumb ass.

Just to let you know, "you can['t] know except for if you've been there or from hearsay" and "If you've just heard you know nothing about it." are contradictory statements, but good try. And keep in mind that when you say stupid shit like you can't judge something based on facts then you've just identified yourself as ignorant.

Also, grammar and capitalization are important. No one like awful, run-on sentences that make no logical sense.
User avatar #59 - admiralen (09/18/2013) [-]
you know whats worse? people who dont read or answer what you have to say cause theyre to wound up in grammar. i dont consider you worth me fixing up my sentences.
and youve read and heard from a FEW.
not from even most or many, youve heard from a few and you make assumptions like theyre facts
#11 - Because guns are actually really ******* hard to …  [+] (3 new replies) 09/18/2013 on Tears Morgan 0
#263 - noschool (09/18/2013) [-]
you could just have a shotgun, that's like the one weapon you don't need to aim. just point and fire.
#266 - Womens Study Major (09/18/2013) [-]
Across the average room a shotgun won't spread much. You can easily miss.
User avatar #265 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
That's not how a shotgun works (At least not every type).

SOME shotguns do fire shrapnel shots, yes; however, you would have to hit a person with an obscene amount of shrapnel to actually kill them (considering those models are neither that accurate or can shoot very far), so yes you actually still have to aim.

Besides, most of those same models are one/two shot firing mechanisms, and take a few seconds to reload. Those few seconds, when facing a hoard of guys, is the difference between life and death. Point is, you still have to know HOW to shoot.
#9 - Some points (and perhaps improvements) I would like to make on…  [+] (19 new replies) 09/18/2013 on bill gates on life +5
User avatar #123 - hoursofglass (09/18/2013) [-]
Life is in no way fair. How is life fair when a child is born in a poor, malaria-ridden tribe in Africa while I was born in a comfortable, upper middle class home with vaccinations and such? Not because I worked so hard to be born to my family and not because that child didn't work hard enough.
User avatar #133 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
The same way that the child, in most occasions, has a way to get out of his poverty while the child in the upper-middle class home will most likely have depression and succumb to suicide because his life is devoid of meaning.

You misunderstand what I say about 'fair' anyways. I mean that you are always able to choose how you react and prepare for situations and are always able to find opportunities to get out of unruly situations should you look hard enough or search hard enough.
User avatar #101 - rockamekishiko (09/18/2013) [-]
what if someone wins the lottery? what if you have some genetic mutation and get cancer? what if you have an asshole boss who promotes someone other than you because they just like them better?
User avatar #104 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
They bought the ticket, they deserved to win; that doesn't mean life is not fair because it could have been literally anybody, it just means luck was on their side.

More times than not, you can prevent many harsh diseases, yes, even cancer, simply by being safe or taking care of yourself.

Then you should get a new boss, or report them, or record it and file a complaint.
User avatar #108 - rockamekishiko (09/18/2013) [-]
a lot of people buy ticket's, only 1 wins. Many times you can prevent but not always - that's why it's not fair. Those are just three examples.
User avatar #110 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
So? You're not forced to buy the ticket, and losing your money is a risk that comes with it. Again, just because there are risks doesn't mean it's not fair, it just means it's risky.

What's not fair is not being able to get proper medical attention in certain parts of the world. But that doesn't mean life is not fair, it just means people are greedy; I stand by my previous statement.
User avatar #115 - rockamekishiko (09/18/2013) [-]
it all comes down to, that in general, life isn't fair
User avatar #119 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You have your opinion, I have mine.
User avatar #87 - zorororonoa (09/18/2013) [-]
So it is my fault when a random guy decides to rob my house and steal all my stuff? Now I agree with most of what you said, but that is bullshit. Life isn't fair. You can't control others actions and thoughts. I'm driving save and following the rules, and someone plows into the side of my car. There is nothing I can do to prevent that. I get shot randomly on the way to school. Are you saying that I can work to make that not happen? Come on man, don't be stupid.
User avatar #92 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Did you lock everything before you left? Do you have an adequate security system? Do you perhaps have a dog? Don't you have insurance for that type of thing?

It's true that life can be random at times, and throw things at you that are beyond your control, but it IS within your control to prepare and react to them. You're right, you cannot prevent another person driving into you, but your insurance can cover it and your own safety precautions can save your life (not only that, but that's why people tell you to look out for those things). Why would someone just pull up and shoot you? That seems a bit far-fetched but hey, you're in the middle of a city and you have a cellphone, you can try to call an ambulance or get someone else to (guns are rather loud after-all).

I understand my advice here seems very fragile and just grasping at straws, but so do your examples. I'm not being stupid, life IS fair because while you cannot control what happens you can always control how you react to it (and most problems are brought on by the individual anyways).
#77 - Womens Study Major (09/18/2013) [-]
Life is unfair because some have better chances. Background plays a huge role throughout your life and will decide who you are. Children from families that are wealthier and/or has members with high education will perform better than those without.
Sure, they can work their asses off. But chances are they wont because the way they grew up wrecked their psyche.

Until you can guarantee equal opportunity, you can't claim that life is fair. Truly equal opportunity can hardly exist, but you won't get anywhere near it with a hugely unequal distribution of goods.
User avatar #79 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Life is fair because people disregard opportunities when they do not know how to utilize them. Ask any financial adviser and they will tell you, nine times out of ten, if you are born into wealth or inherit it, you blow it. Furthermore, those children from those same high-class families tend to have very little life experience; put them on their own or without their money and you will quickly find the average joe lives easier and wiser than that rich kid ever did.

Equal opportunity does exist, you just have to make it for yourself. I stand by my previous statements.
#58 - Womens Study Major (09/18/2013) [-]
"1. Life is actually fair, you get EXACTLY what you work for, nothing more and nothing less, one way or another. "

It sure took a lot of hard work to get this terminal cancer!

You fucking moron.
User avatar #60 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
It's true that you cannot control things like that, but you can greatly reduce the chances of getting it by eating healthy, exercising, and generally not sticking things inside your body that shouldn't be there.

You fucking moron.
#13 - joekerr (09/18/2013) [-]
1. Then no asshole / someone disliking and putting you at disadvantages was ever in a position of authority to you. That's the situation i pictured when reading life would be unfair.
2. I agree.
3. I would add something else to this: It is hard work, discipline and a good, maybe rare chance of luck that is necessary for that. Speaking of which, i think there was some meme about "dragon killin" .... you may be wise, talented, etc., the one to suceed is the determinated .... I have some content on that I will add. Hmm, this post will have it already.
4. Never got holiday denied because you're needed? Never made mistakes? Bosses don't approve like teachers do.
5. Having your own income generates independence and you learn about responsibility, maybe view it like that.
8. That's the lazy coward way you critzise. To be truely successful, you have to give it all all the time.
9. You need to be extremely competent or a very liberal corporal management that allows a leave.
11. Agree
User avatar #14 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
You get exactly what you work for. If you choose to work under a boss who deliberately puts you at a disadvantage, you are only doing it to yourself; furthermore, YOU should have the foresight to put yourself in a situation where that cannot happen, such as some other higher up seeing your progress or actually making a record of things.

Bah, luck implies it is out of your power, but I would rather thing that everyone has the power to change their life and circumstances, no matter how glum things may seem.

A good boss understands the needs of their workers, like a good worker will understand the needs of the boss; getting a holiday 'denied' isn't bad because in most cases you can simply say 'no' and go back to what you were doing. They can't actually fire you for that (at least not here in British Columbia/Canada) unless you were bound by a contract. Furthermore, even if you DID have to do it, chances are you would be compensated greatly. Again, this isn't about bosses in general; there are many bad bosses much like there are many bad workers, but good bosses and good workers never have a hard time even under bad circumstances.

That's just splitting hairs. You could see it as independence while I could see it as slavery; it all just depends upon the perceptions of the individual, and those perceptions are whatever makes them happy.

You're right, but the lazy coward is not a good worker, and if these people were good workers they wouldn't need Mr.Gates' motivational speech.

Not necessarily; some jobs literally do depend upon certain times of the year, some jobs cannot be done in the winter or summer while some can ONLY be done in the winter or summer. They won't make you sit around and do nothing and pay you for it, so it makes sense they will have you leave for six months and just pay you when you get back (or some such).
#27 - infernis has deleted their comment.
User avatar #47 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
I never said that, what I said was if you let yourself get treated badly, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
User avatar #15 - joekerr (09/18/2013) [-]
You don't get to know your boss after you got employed. I agree however that one should react in the way you implied: Find another job. But you can't leave that job w/ the idiot-boss until you got something else safe. I definetaly prefer an idiot boss over being unemployed. On the other hand, there are people who do not even have this choice, as their qualifications are way too low.

60k p. a. is luck and not in your power - i am talking about normal people, no geniuses and/or inheritance people. I was talking about your point ;)

I was talking about that leave-option you mentioned. That's not possible for workers in the industry and if they do, they cant come back. It's naive.

If you feel like a slave, just leave the job. Bill Gates adresses students.

With this description I honestly had those opportunists in mind, that always kind of cheat their way through and use every option available to achieve this (most extreme case ofc).

Well yes, ofc. I didn't think of seasonal workers. I thought of the possibility of taking a 1-3 month leave at companies like the BCG
#8 - Life isn't gonna give a **** whether you want it … 09/18/2013 on bill gates on life +1
#72 - Do you think a woman like that would want their man in the ar…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/18/2013 on I think this GTA would kick... 0
User avatar #125 - Nihatclodra (09/18/2013) [-]
That's the exciting part!
#62 - If I could choose a Waifu, Balalaika from Black Lagoon or Inte…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/18/2013 on I think this GTA would kick... +2
User avatar #88 - oilcookedsolanacea (09/18/2013) [-]
If you love dominant women you could probably choose any girl in Black Lagoon. Except maybe, maybe Fabiola.
#71 - Nihatclodra (09/18/2013) [-]
Why not both?
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (09/18/2013) [-]
Do you think a woman like that would want their man in the arms of another?
User avatar #125 - Nihatclodra (09/18/2013) [-]
That's the exciting part!

Comments(483):

[ 483 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure (09/30/2014) [-]
******* retard compares the IS to today's feminists. One could say ignorance is an everspreading cancer, you did your job to increase the spread.
User avatar #491 to #490 - captainfuckitall (09/30/2014) [-]
You seem REALLY mad, friend. Perhaps you should calm down and take some ass ointment before you need to see a doctor
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
#480 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#479 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#478 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#477 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#476 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
#466 - Womens Study Major (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for **** ",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
#463 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.   
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.   
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.   
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
User avatar #464 to #463 - captainfuckitall (07/16/2013) [-]
You are just a wonderful person, you know that? Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation, and I'm glad you have made an account and made many friends here, including myself
#465 to #464 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
User avatar #461 - potgardener (06/01/2013) [-]
youre pretty ****** in the head if beating a kid is a good idea, parents would need to hit their kids if they taught them what was right and wrong from the beginning
User avatar #462 to #461 - captainfuckitall (06/01/2013) [-]
It's ironic how you talk about avoiding situations, when your very comment isn't needed considering I already explained, about five times now, that I do not mean you must 'abuse' your children in order to get good results. My comment, and all the comments afterwards, were about how when compassion and support fails you must turn to punishment and discipline, including simply smacking your kid upside the head

Perhaps you should read more and get better informed before jumping to opinions, yes?
#459 - bossdelainternet (05/11/2013) [-]
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest  threads i've seen this year.   
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...   
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest threads i've seen this year.
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
User avatar #460 to #459 - captainfuckitall (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm not sure whether I should take that as a compliment or an insult

I choose the former

Thank you, good sir
#453 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
I just thought I'd let you know that I just did an awful thing and quoted your majestic deep words of death wisdom onto my facebook. I gave you credit, but as part of my shame for stealing I thought I'd tell you. That was honestly one of the best things I've ever read.

Which is also why I screencapped it. Don't worry I swear I'm not going to try to get to frontpage with it I just wanted to save it.
User avatar #454 to #453 - captainfuckitall (11/12/2012) [-]
Not at all, I am not concerned with thumbs in the least. If you would like to post it, by all means do so, if you'd like to take credit, do so as well; I care not for material value or fame, as long as comprehend and understand the message
#455 to #454 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
Oh man you just keep getting better:)    
   
But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
Oh man you just keep getting better:)

But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
#449 - captainspankmonkey (02/27/2012) [-]
Internet problems
That is why :P
User avatar #450 to #460 - captainfuckitall (02/27/2012) [-]
ahhh, haha, sorry then :P
#447 - Womens Study Major (09/26/2011) [-]
you're a lovely person
User avatar #448 to #458 - captainfuckitall (09/26/2011) [-]
awe, thank you, kind stranger :3

that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
[ 483 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)