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

hide menu

gonzocos

Rank #44121 on Subscribers
gonzocos Avatar Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to gonzocos Block gonzocos Invite gonzocos to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:9/06/2012
Last Login:12/27/2012
Location:hot steamy balls
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 5 total,  13 ,  18
Comment Thumbs: 1491 total,  1893 ,  402
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -1 Content: Sort of disliked → Level 0 Content: Untouched account
Comment Level Progress: 90% (90/100)
Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:1611
Total Comments Made:252
FJ Points:1511
Favorite Tags: in (2) | my (2) | nigger (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

latest user's comments

#167 - you obviously haven't been on 4chan then..........its pretty d… 12/20/2012 on Oh god why +2
#25 - and i care why? 12/18/2012 on Only in America -8
#49 - marijuana never killed anyone though...  [+] (9 new replies) 12/18/2012 on GUN CONTROL!!! +6
User avatar #73 - zombehhh (12/18/2012) [-]
Weed is more cancerous than cigarettes so maybe not immediately but over time.
User avatar #110 - vikingfaen (12/18/2012) [-]
Nope.
User avatar #112 - zombehhh (12/18/2012) [-]
http://www.independent. co. uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/young-cannabis-users-do-not-realis e-the-huge-danger-to-their-health-7818050.html
User avatar #115 - vikingfaen (12/19/2012) [-]
You really do believe everything you read, huh?
User avatar #116 - zombehhh (12/19/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure you read that weed was good for you and believed it. Nah bro, I looked it up.
User avatar #117 - vikingfaen (12/20/2012) [-]
Why would I believe it's good for me? I'm inhaling smoke with THC. But it's not cancerous. Normal cigarettes are far more dangerous in it's own way. Sure, weed isn't directly healthy, but there are medical uses for it. You don't see people with glaucoma smoking marlboro red do you?
User avatar #79 - lateday (12/18/2012) [-]
No, it is not. It really fucks up your brain, but it isn't any more cancerous than normal cigarettes.
User avatar #113 - zombehhh (12/18/2012) [-]
http://www.independent. co .uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/young-cannabis-users-do-not-reali se-the-huge-danger-to-their-health-7818050.html
User avatar #66 - chucknorrisTHEGAME (12/18/2012) [-]
True, but laws don't stop her from smoking it, because she wants to smoke it. Laws wouldn't stop a criminal from getting and using a gun, and the crime they want to commit with the gun isn't legal anyway, so they don't care.
#409 - old lady teachers vs a guy who is not afraid of dying?  [+] (2 new replies) 12/16/2012 on Do you agree? -2
User avatar #423 - toosexyforyou (12/16/2012) [-]
holy shit you are one stupid fuck
#411 - internetzsoviet (12/16/2012) [-]
What does that have to do with knowing how to fire a gun. Anyone can shoot someone, old or not afraid of dying.
#399 - mfw if someone is going to kill them self and go on a shooting…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/16/2012 on Do you agree? -4
#406 - internetzsoviet (12/16/2012) [-]
Then if they dont care about dying, having armed staff kill them before they can cause damage would be beneficial. No?
User avatar #409 - gonzocos (12/16/2012) [-]
old lady teachers vs a guy who is not afraid of dying?
User avatar #423 - toosexyforyou (12/16/2012) [-]
holy shit you are one stupid fuck
#411 - internetzsoviet (12/16/2012) [-]
What does that have to do with knowing how to fire a gun. Anyone can shoot someone, old or not afraid of dying.
#619 - the government back then was way more strict than now, and the… 12/16/2012 on praise be to bacon -3
#608 - It also state soldiers can't live within a civilians house and…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/16/2012 on praise be to bacon -3
#644 - stonecore (12/16/2012) [-]
Eminent domain is a clever way around the 3rd ammendmeny
User avatar #637 - princessderpy (12/16/2012) [-]
Actually nigger,

Those do apply, it keeps the military from kicking in your door and telling you to feed and shelter this/these soldiers because they are the government.

So just because we did not have m-16a1s in 1776, we should not have them now?

The law was so that everyone from the military to the civilians had the same type of firepower.

Look at Switzerland, everyone is required to have and be trained to use a gun, no gun problems there.
#587 - mfw at least ******* ban assault weapons, for …  [+] (11 new replies) 12/16/2012 on praise be to bacon -2
#653 - teufelshunde (12/16/2012) [-]
Assault is an intent or action, not a category.

An AR15 or AK47 isn't for home or self defense, but for homeland defense. The Second was established so ordinary citizens could defend themselves from the government should they turn tyrannical, or from a foreign invasion force. When the AWB was established in '94, crime skyrocketed in a lot of places. Criminals will always have means of getting firearms, and if that supply is somehow taken away then they'll resort to other means, such as knives, rocks, sticks, and so forth. Should we ban those too? No.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=p8RDWltHxRc&NR=1
User avatar #638 - princessderpy (12/16/2012) [-]
Assault rifle: A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Now tell me how the ak-47, ak-74u, the ar-15s [the civilian versions of the ak, and the civilians model of m-16], and the bushmasters [the hunting rifle designed after the m-16a1] are deemed worthy of being banned?
#636 - princessderpy has deleted their comment.
#604 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
I would like to have those types of weapons to protect myself from the government.... which is what the second amendment is ACTUALLY for.
User avatar #619 - gonzocos (12/16/2012) [-]
the government back then was way more strict than now, and they were trying to become a new nation and fight a war. In today's society that will never happen for the u.s. The government isn't coming to your door to kill you.
User avatar #601 - rexthedino (12/16/2012) [-]
Why? Why should I not have the right to own an "Assault weapon" whatever that means anyway. Do you even realize what the second amendment was intended for?

It was for individuals to never be disarmed by the government mostly for the protection FROM government. At the time it was enacted civilians had exactly the same firepower as the military and we should now as well.
User avatar #620 - scouts (12/16/2012) [-]
technically aren't all weapons used for "assault"

the notion of calling a weapon and assault weapon is oxi-moron in all respects
#608 - gonzocos (12/16/2012) [-]
It also state soldiers can't live within a civilians house and other things that applied to that era, i don't think George Washington had weapons like these. Its crazy that a normal person should have a machine willing to kill so many people in so little action, its crazy.
#644 - stonecore (12/16/2012) [-]
Eminent domain is a clever way around the 3rd ammendmeny
User avatar #637 - princessderpy (12/16/2012) [-]
Actually nigger,

Those do apply, it keeps the military from kicking in your door and telling you to feed and shelter this/these soldiers because they are the government.

So just because we did not have m-16a1s in 1776, we should not have them now?

The law was so that everyone from the military to the civilians had the same type of firepower.

Look at Switzerland, everyone is required to have and be trained to use a gun, no gun problems there.
User avatar #605 - wangfukholycrap (12/16/2012) [-]
Damn, you beat me to it.
#10 - going over a bump on it or falling 12/15/2012 on best motorcycle ever +5
#37 - Hey hey hey, anon chicago is an amazing city op is just … 12/15/2012 on SEEN THIS WILE IN CHICAGO +1
[ 252 Total ]

user's friends

User avatar Tjjennings    

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
 Friends (0)