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

hide menu

insertdumbnamehere    

no avatar Level 24 Comments: Peasant
Offline
Send mail to insertdumbnamehere Block insertdumbnamehere Invite insertdumbnamehere to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/08/2010
Last Login:9/03/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 24 total,  71 ,  47
Comment Thumbs: 74 total,  103 ,  29
Content Level Progress: 47.45% (28/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 24 Comments: Peasant → Level 25 Comments: Peasant
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5475
Total Comments Made:35
FJ Points:73

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 1109
    Thumbs Up 22 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +18
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/04/12
    Vader Vader
  • Views: 1351
    Thumbs Up 9 Thumbs Down 10 Total: -1
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/08/12
    wait what am I supposed to put here? wait what am I supposed to put...
  • Views: 357
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 10 Total: -6
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 04/04/12
    Problem? Problem?
  • Views: 354
    Thumbs Up 0 Thumbs Down 8 Total: -8
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/14/12
    Why? Why?
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#230 - You didn't get thumbed down for being wrong. Everybody should … 12/01/2013 on 3D printed Glock 0
#17 - Did OP not catch the DixiEnormus? 'Cause that ***** …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/31/2012 on Wifi +1
User avatar #18 - dildoblaster (10/31/2012) [-]
or "DixiNormous Guest" hahaha
#1 - > Im NOT the OC of this wat  [+] (11 new replies) 10/24/2012 on What a bitch. +9
#12 - hurrdurka (10/24/2012) [-]
Maybe he mean't the original creator....
#14 - iliketopartybitch (10/24/2012) [-]
Umm...Im a girl....
Just an FYI.
:|
#16 - hurrdurka (10/25/2012) [-]
Your point being?

FYI we dont care...
User avatar #15 - yunogasaii (10/24/2012) [-]
So?
#4 - isuckdickformoney (10/24/2012) [-]
OC = original creator

im NOT the original creator of this
User avatar #5 - yunogasaii (10/24/2012) [-]
OC means original comic. OP means original poster.
User avatar #9 - flourchin (10/24/2012) [-]
Well I always thought it was Original Content, not comic.
User avatar #11 - yunogasaii (10/24/2012) [-]
My bad, it is.
User avatar #13 - siridontcare (10/24/2012) [-]
it stands for original creation... its a art term....but I will get thumbed down as I always do for saying this....
#6 - isuckdickformoney (10/24/2012) [-]
oops , thanks for that , OP must have made the same mistake i did
#3 - iliketopartybitch (10/24/2012) [-]
I found this over Tumblr and someone else made it so it's basically not mine.
#344 - It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a miss…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
#173 - I agree with the idea that cons and nut jobs shouldn't get gun… 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... +1
#167 - No you just need to do everything you can to protect what you …  [+] (3 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... +3
#250 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
"Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller."
This is your words. And I said you always need more destructive weapons... Tell me how is that any different!!
P.S. I don't think i'll ever have to protect my family with granades or missles, maybe where u live is different!
#344 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a missile. You have taken what I said and tried to use it to say I want to do things that are not humanly possible by myself (like fire a missile at someone). If throwing a grenade is something I can do to make sure any of my family members or myself don't end up dead, I will do it in a heartbeat. Although I admit its not likely I will be in a situation to need a grenade.

However this has turned from a debate to you being cynical to people who disagree with you so there's not any point in continuing it. It looks like your plan if anything ever upsets the balance of the perfect world your living in where there are no wars or break ins or riots is to bend over and take it up the ass. For the record a government soldier dies just as quick to a bullet as you or I do.
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
#157 - So your argument is that you should always blindly obey people…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... +1
#165 - Sammael (09/07/2012) [-]
No, I'm just saying that your argument "i need my guns to fight government" is silly.
If government has military on their side, we are fucked, we CAN'T fight them with weapons. We can fight them with ideas, rising up, getting little old grandma's on our side and shaming military to join us. Shooting just gives government excuse to get more control.
I am very much proponent of having right to bear arms. If someone got in my home and tried to harm my family i'd shoot him dead without thinking about it twice. And sleep like a baby. I think every responsible, sane citizen should have a gun.
But, I am also proponent of gun CONTROL. I really don't think people with serious mental issues and violent criminals should have a right to have a gun.
#173 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
I agree with the idea that cons and nut jobs shouldn't get guns, but that is already in effect. In order to buy a gun at the very least you have to pass a background check. I'm not sure if that is universal throughout the country but that is true in Texas which is supposed to be one of the easiest states to get a gun in.

The thing people are mad about is for a personal sale (not buying from a dealer) there is no check required but the only way to get around that is either to make a big list of gun owners and track every gun in the U.S.. Or ban the selling of guns anywhere other than government approved dealers. Either way its not effective and just makes it harder on people who actually want to do things legitimately.
#146 - You can only protect yourself and your loved ones to the best …  [+] (5 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... +3
#159 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
Yes, to protect your family you HAVE to own always weapons with more destructive power than anybody else!! GO AMERICA!!!
#167 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
No you just need to do everything you can to protect what you need to. Is this a new concept or something?
#250 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
"Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller."
This is your words. And I said you always need more destructive weapons... Tell me how is that any different!!
P.S. I don't think i'll ever have to protect my family with granades or missles, maybe where u live is different!
#344 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a missile. You have taken what I said and tried to use it to say I want to do things that are not humanly possible by myself (like fire a missile at someone). If throwing a grenade is something I can do to make sure any of my family members or myself don't end up dead, I will do it in a heartbeat. Although I admit its not likely I will be in a situation to need a grenade.

However this has turned from a debate to you being cynical to people who disagree with you so there's not any point in continuing it. It looks like your plan if anything ever upsets the balance of the perfect world your living in where there are no wars or break ins or riots is to bend over and take it up the ass. For the record a government soldier dies just as quick to a bullet as you or I do.
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
#137 - If the government that currently has power over them does, yes it is.  [+] (13 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... +1
#138 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
Flawless logic! Only problem is that the government has also power over nuclear wapons... So how many megatons is yours?
#209 - themanwhoknocks (09/07/2012) [-]
Well, lets say the government is this super bad steal you up from the night type of thing ok? Now lets say they want to steal me up or my child up from the night. They will not nuke me, and only me. that is impractical and flawed logic, they will however send a person, and if that person were to use force, I would want to make sure i could protect me and my own.
#255 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
HAHAHaAHAHAHAH :D I want to see how well you can defend yourself against the government soldier!!!! Are you some kind of Rambo?!?
#808 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
please refer to comment 146, by insertdumbnamehere, before insulting me. I never said I was good enough to take down a government, but if someone were to invade my home (I used the government sending officials as an example) I would rather have an arsenal that gives me the means to defend myself, but having the know-how to do so I would need to get on my own.
#816 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
Well, I tought Jason Bourne existed only in movie but if you're confident in yourself i'm sure you could evenly match 10 trained soldiers by yourself!
By the way i think that not anybody who can buy granades has the training to use them so it would be safer to make laws for regulamentation.
#824 - themanwhoknocks (09/08/2012) [-]
Ok if this isn't a serious troll post please reflect on what it is you are doing in life. I DID NOT SAY I COULD EASILY DO IT. I simply said, if you look, that I would like to have the means to do it (a gun) whereas I may or may not have the actual ability to do it. I would recommend actually reading the full comment, and not just skimming.
#826 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
A gun for self defense for me is perfectly fine. I just don't comprehend why should someone need something like granades and I don't want that people with mental problems or with an history of violence to be able to legally buy guns. Therefore REGULAMENTATION and CONTROL are needed. It's called gun-CONTROL law, not gun-NOATALL law.
#146 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
You can only protect yourself and your loved ones to the best of your ability. Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller.
#159 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
Yes, to protect your family you HAVE to own always weapons with more destructive power than anybody else!! GO AMERICA!!!
#167 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
No you just need to do everything you can to protect what you need to. Is this a new concept or something?
#250 - blobbo (09/07/2012) [-]
"Always someone with a bigger stick, I just don't to intentionally make mine smaller."
This is your words. And I said you always need more destructive weapons... Tell me how is that any different!!
P.S. I don't think i'll ever have to protect my family with granades or missles, maybe where u live is different!
#344 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
It doesn't make any sense for me to protect myself with a missile. You have taken what I said and tried to use it to say I want to do things that are not humanly possible by myself (like fire a missile at someone). If throwing a grenade is something I can do to make sure any of my family members or myself don't end up dead, I will do it in a heartbeat. Although I admit its not likely I will be in a situation to need a grenade.

However this has turned from a debate to you being cynical to people who disagree with you so there's not any point in continuing it. It looks like your plan if anything ever upsets the balance of the perfect world your living in where there are no wars or break ins or riots is to bend over and take it up the ass. For the record a government soldier dies just as quick to a bullet as you or I do.
#817 - blobbo (09/08/2012) [-]
My plan for that kind of situation is to carry one gun, a lot of ammunition and to try to hide or enter a big group of people cause you know, with bigger numbers comes bigger power. This is how works society. I won't just go Rambo on the others throwing granades and probably killing innocent people.
In the end i don't think it's so illogical to ask for weapons to be given only to people who can use them (I wouldn't know how to handle a granade, probably i'd blow my hand up), who are mentally stable to use them and to not let people have unecessary powerful weapons.
#131 - First of all the following argument only applies to those with…  [+] (11 new replies) 09/07/2012 on Logic does not apply to... 0
User avatar #218 - stanleys (09/07/2012) [-]
I love you. Unfortunately for me, I live in Illinois, the only state that forbids having a concealed firearm
#195 - peppebronie (09/07/2012) [-]
#192 - sengenjin (09/07/2012) [-]
I love you.
#151 - anonymous (09/07/2012) [-]
i need a tank.
i cant allow my government to have a edge over me in gunpower!
#147 - Sammael (09/07/2012) [-]
So exactly how would you fight tyrannical american government?
With assault rifles? Hell even with artillery, when they can fire a low yield nuclear missile from atlantic ocean and fry your entire town.
If american government turned tyrannical, and with that unconcerned with lives lost, you'd be fucked. Because no matter what you have, they have missiles that can reach across continents, predator drones, f-22s and similar weapons that you-can't-afford-to-buy.
#200 - anonymous (09/07/2012) [-]
Everything below me is tl;dr. But really? Even tyrannical governments try to avoid causing damage to their own cities, the only time that DOES happen is when the person in charge is already (and notably) mentally unstable (see Saddam, Gaddafi). Even if Americans revolted for one reason or another, there is no way the government would order a nuclear strike on it's own territory. That would (a) destroy their own structures/farm land/resources/production facilities and, more importantly, (b) turn just about anyone who was still pro-US government against them (in other words, destroy any support they may have had). And how would American's fight their government if they needed to? Sheer numbers. Bet your *ss it would be messy and a lot of lives would be lost, they CERTAINLY have the firepower, even without nuclear weapons; but the British had vastly superior military technology to the American's during the American Revolutionary War and the Americans still managed to win that via tactical innovation, sabotage, sheer numbers, and (of course) foreign support from France as well as a few other countries. Refer to the fall of the various imperial states for more information on the people triumphing over governments with superior firepower (albeit, often after substantial loss).

Anyway, more on the topic of the post. I'm in full support of weapon ownership, I think there should be a limit on certain military tech of course (i.e. tanks, high explosives, and certain fully automatic weapons) and I do support mandatory licencing, background checks, and revocation of the right to bear arms in the cases of felons and other violent criminals. I don't really think there is anyone against that sort of thing (licensing and background checks) you'd have to be a complete idiot to be opposed to that.
User avatar #160 - Keleth (09/07/2012) [-]
keep in mind the government is people. we would never come to that point. not without severe brainwashing of the military. they are people just like us. not many would pull the trigger on their own people. that's not to say there aren't some "good soldiers" who would though. i would not need to afford any of those weapons, because they people who actually fire or fly them, would probably be on the side of freedom and stuff. MERICA'
#171 - Sammael (09/07/2012) [-]
Don't think that it could never get to that point. In 1920ies Germany was most liberal country in Europe. Horrible thing about dictatorship is that it CAN happen anywhere.
America dodged a bullet with McCarthy, narrowly. Read the book called "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis.
That is why its every citizen's job to never become coddled in belief that its safe. Price of true freedom is eternal vigil.
#157 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
So your argument is that you should always blindly obey people because they have more firepower than you?

I'm not saying we wouldn't be fucked in extreme situations like that but in the case of "example" is now illegal we will be coming to your house to take it away. I highly doubt they would for example nuke a state if it seceded from the union. But yes if any government does decide to nuke people were all fucked.
#165 - Sammael (09/07/2012) [-]
No, I'm just saying that your argument "i need my guns to fight government" is silly.
If government has military on their side, we are fucked, we CAN'T fight them with weapons. We can fight them with ideas, rising up, getting little old grandma's on our side and shaming military to join us. Shooting just gives government excuse to get more control.
I am very much proponent of having right to bear arms. If someone got in my home and tried to harm my family i'd shoot him dead without thinking about it twice. And sleep like a baby. I think every responsible, sane citizen should have a gun.
But, I am also proponent of gun CONTROL. I really don't think people with serious mental issues and violent criminals should have a right to have a gun.
#173 - insertdumbnamehere (09/07/2012) [-]
I agree with the idea that cons and nut jobs shouldn't get guns, but that is already in effect. In order to buy a gun at the very least you have to pass a background check. I'm not sure if that is universal throughout the country but that is true in Texas which is supposed to be one of the easiest states to get a gun in.

The thing people are mad about is for a personal sale (not buying from a dealer) there is no check required but the only way to get around that is either to make a big list of gun owners and track every gun in the U.S.. Or ban the selling of guns anywhere other than government approved dealers. Either way its not effective and just makes it harder on people who actually want to do things legitimately.
[ 33 Total ]

user's channels

Join Subscribe roosterteethtime
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 850

Comments(0):

 

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