Upload
Login or register

joselu

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:9/02/2011
Last Login:7/23/2016
Location:Madrid Spain
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#31859
Highest Content Rank:#16709
Highest Comment Rank:#18975
Content Thumbs: 4 total,  14 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 39 total,  59 ,  20
Content Level Progress: 11.86% (7/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 80% (44/55)
Level 0 Comments: Untouched account → Level 1 Comments: New Here
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1777
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:26
FJ Points:43

  • Views: 645
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 5 Total: -1
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 12/09/11
    Madeon FTW! Madeon FTW!

latest user's comments

#101 - How can you think itìs totalitarian to ban guns? So let m…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. 0
User avatar
#111 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
Trying to subvert the desires of more than 50% of Americans and discard any democratic process to implement an anti-gun law is what many of us would call totalitarian.

Americans don't want guns banned because first of all
1. Constitution says so, and our constitution was made with the intent that if the people so desire, or should the acting government overstep its bounds and attempt to subvert the people and/or strip them of their outlined rights, they would have the means to defend themselves to protect said rights. It originally intended for civilians to have the same means of weaponry that the government possesses to equal the playing field as much as possible. Take that as you will.
2. Preventative measure of war, not just with ourselves, but with other countries. Such an armed populace makes any land invasion impossible and creates a militia pool that vastly outnumbers any military.
3. Domestic self defense. Because our FBI statistics show that is how the vast majority of guns are used in this country, and if you take out suicide and violence between gang members as factors, death by gun is so rare in the US, that you're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be caught in a mass shooting. Many charts shown to promote gun control don't discriminate or separate these statistics to askew these facts.

I don't get what you're trying to say about the civil wars though. Of course there's going to be a huge conflict within the government as well, but like I said, there'd have to be someone trying to take way too much control over the country in order to cause such a war. The US political system is complicated and slow, but mainly because it keeps someone crazy enough to push hard laws from even having the ability to try it.

And if you're implying that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot because you'll maybe get injured by mistake or children getting a hold of it, that's easily fixable with proper gun education and more of an individual fault for such misuse with a dangerous tool. Not like anyone is calling for cars to be regulated because of how many people that crash and die while driving them.
#95 - It is defenetly a cultural thing. But this would be my solutio…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. 0
#100 - lozarus (06/16/2016) [-]
Number 2 would already cause an uproar, so it would not work. People who like guns tend to have more than 3.
#99 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
1- Already implemented somewhat. You need to have what's called an FFL (Federal Firearms Licence) or an equivalent permit to purchase any automatic firearms. Despite being rather inefficient as a killing tool. They're horribly inaccurate and prohibitively expensive.
2- This has been proposed. Never has been able to nearly get enough support to pass on even a state or city level. Cited as being far too costly to implement and impossible to enforce, so you'll be stopped here.
3- Now that's surprising. Good luck not being immediately run out of the country or shot from both sides of the party for being so blatantly racist.
4- If 2-4 somehow were able to pass and you're still somehow in charge, you'd be definitely having a civil war on your hands.
5-6, same as 4. Trying something like that would be a death sentence.

You seem to not understand how ingrained the gun culture is in the US. Nor how laws are passed because there's many checks, balances, and regulations to keep any "totalitarian" laws from ever seeing the light of day. Not unless you somehow became a dictator, but that's another way to get a bounty on your head. 15 years is also waaaaay too short to even think something like that. You'd need at LEAST a couple generations to change people's minds so drastically, and even then, such a hard control historically only lasts a generation at most.

And before you even say, "Well they could just implement martial law and force them to submit with all our military high tech, right?" No law enforcement or military official would dare try it, because trying to subdue millions of people bunkering down and ready to fight for their rights is a terrifyingly hopeless pursuit. It'd be an insurgent war like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, but to an unprecedented scale, including half our military refusing to fire on civilians and turning on itself.
User avatar
#101 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
How can you think itìs totalitarian to ban guns?
So let me see if I get this right:
Americans don't want guns banned becouse it would hinder the possibility of a civil war, americans are scared of what the goberment can do and wish to have the power to overtake it if the time ever comes. Also for "domestic protection".
If this is the case, why not think about it: If there is ever a civil war, it will never be people vs goverment. It will always be: (some people + some people of goverment) vs (other people + other people of goverment) and the leaders WILL ARM the people for war on both sides.
And I'm sure guns bring more death to households than actual armed robbers.
User avatar
#111 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
Trying to subvert the desires of more than 50% of Americans and discard any democratic process to implement an anti-gun law is what many of us would call totalitarian.

Americans don't want guns banned because first of all
1. Constitution says so, and our constitution was made with the intent that if the people so desire, or should the acting government overstep its bounds and attempt to subvert the people and/or strip them of their outlined rights, they would have the means to defend themselves to protect said rights. It originally intended for civilians to have the same means of weaponry that the government possesses to equal the playing field as much as possible. Take that as you will.
2. Preventative measure of war, not just with ourselves, but with other countries. Such an armed populace makes any land invasion impossible and creates a militia pool that vastly outnumbers any military.
3. Domestic self defense. Because our FBI statistics show that is how the vast majority of guns are used in this country, and if you take out suicide and violence between gang members as factors, death by gun is so rare in the US, that you're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be caught in a mass shooting. Many charts shown to promote gun control don't discriminate or separate these statistics to askew these facts.

I don't get what you're trying to say about the civil wars though. Of course there's going to be a huge conflict within the government as well, but like I said, there'd have to be someone trying to take way too much control over the country in order to cause such a war. The US political system is complicated and slow, but mainly because it keeps someone crazy enough to push hard laws from even having the ability to try it.

And if you're implying that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot because you'll maybe get injured by mistake or children getting a hold of it, that's easily fixable with proper gun education and more of an individual fault for such misuse with a dangerous tool. Not like anyone is calling for cars to be regulated because of how many people that crash and die while driving them.
#91 - A 20 % participation rate is expected from the buyback method,…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. 0
User avatar
#92 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
I don't think you understood what I said.

That small percentage consist of the people who are willing to submit their guns. The rest are people who will go to lengths as far as burying their arsenal in their garden to hide them from the government or anyone they think is after them. If you did another buyback, no one would show up the second time.

See, Americans have this weird tendency to instinctively do the opposite of what any sort of government tells them to do. And like I said, gun control, at the state level at least, has only been decreased, and domestic gun sales have only increased since more vocal calls for gun control have been made. Why? Because a vast majority of gun owners like their guns and want to keep them, and feel that this world is too unsafe to not have a viable means of self-defense. Trying to get rid of them only makes them want to keep them more, because as our constitution put it since our country's founding, it's a god-given right that "shall not be infringed." And while politicians and other countries scream and whine about it as much as they can, there's literally no way that you could implement any wholesale gun control, or even change the minds of the people about it. It's part of the culture, and you can't really change that so easily like you may think.
User avatar
#95 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
It is defenetly a cultural thing. But this would be my solution:
1-Restrict the use of submachine guns to only military and police. And wait.
2-Restrict number of guns per person to 3 max. And wait
3-Ban anyone with a criminal record or inmigrant from having guns. And wiat.
4-Create a real regulation so that only a few minority of people can access "recreational guns". At this point it should not be a big deal to the people. And wait more.
5-Ban the selling of guns to all citicens.
6-Create programs to distroy remaining guns in the country by insentivising them.
This should work over a period of 15 years
#100 - lozarus (06/16/2016) [-]
Number 2 would already cause an uproar, so it would not work. People who like guns tend to have more than 3.
#99 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
1- Already implemented somewhat. You need to have what's called an FFL (Federal Firearms Licence) or an equivalent permit to purchase any automatic firearms. Despite being rather inefficient as a killing tool. They're horribly inaccurate and prohibitively expensive.
2- This has been proposed. Never has been able to nearly get enough support to pass on even a state or city level. Cited as being far too costly to implement and impossible to enforce, so you'll be stopped here.
3- Now that's surprising. Good luck not being immediately run out of the country or shot from both sides of the party for being so blatantly racist.
4- If 2-4 somehow were able to pass and you're still somehow in charge, you'd be definitely having a civil war on your hands.
5-6, same as 4. Trying something like that would be a death sentence.

You seem to not understand how ingrained the gun culture is in the US. Nor how laws are passed because there's many checks, balances, and regulations to keep any "totalitarian" laws from ever seeing the light of day. Not unless you somehow became a dictator, but that's another way to get a bounty on your head. 15 years is also waaaaay too short to even think something like that. You'd need at LEAST a couple generations to change people's minds so drastically, and even then, such a hard control historically only lasts a generation at most.

And before you even say, "Well they could just implement martial law and force them to submit with all our military high tech, right?" No law enforcement or military official would dare try it, because trying to subdue millions of people bunkering down and ready to fight for their rights is a terrifyingly hopeless pursuit. It'd be an insurgent war like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, but to an unprecedented scale, including half our military refusing to fire on civilians and turning on itself.
User avatar
#101 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
How can you think itìs totalitarian to ban guns?
So let me see if I get this right:
Americans don't want guns banned becouse it would hinder the possibility of a civil war, americans are scared of what the goberment can do and wish to have the power to overtake it if the time ever comes. Also for "domestic protection".
If this is the case, why not think about it: If there is ever a civil war, it will never be people vs goverment. It will always be: (some people + some people of goverment) vs (other people + other people of goverment) and the leaders WILL ARM the people for war on both sides.
And I'm sure guns bring more death to households than actual armed robbers.
User avatar
#111 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
Trying to subvert the desires of more than 50% of Americans and discard any democratic process to implement an anti-gun law is what many of us would call totalitarian.

Americans don't want guns banned because first of all
1. Constitution says so, and our constitution was made with the intent that if the people so desire, or should the acting government overstep its bounds and attempt to subvert the people and/or strip them of their outlined rights, they would have the means to defend themselves to protect said rights. It originally intended for civilians to have the same means of weaponry that the government possesses to equal the playing field as much as possible. Take that as you will.
2. Preventative measure of war, not just with ourselves, but with other countries. Such an armed populace makes any land invasion impossible and creates a militia pool that vastly outnumbers any military.
3. Domestic self defense. Because our FBI statistics show that is how the vast majority of guns are used in this country, and if you take out suicide and violence between gang members as factors, death by gun is so rare in the US, that you're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be caught in a mass shooting. Many charts shown to promote gun control don't discriminate or separate these statistics to askew these facts.

I don't get what you're trying to say about the civil wars though. Of course there's going to be a huge conflict within the government as well, but like I said, there'd have to be someone trying to take way too much control over the country in order to cause such a war. The US political system is complicated and slow, but mainly because it keeps someone crazy enough to push hard laws from even having the ability to try it.

And if you're implying that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot because you'll maybe get injured by mistake or children getting a hold of it, that's easily fixable with proper gun education and more of an individual fault for such misuse with a dangerous tool. Not like anyone is calling for cars to be regulated because of how many people that crash and die while driving them.
#82 - If americans know they have a lot of guns then the production … 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. 0
#77 - I get what your saying, but they should do like this program b…  [+] (10 new replies) 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. 0
User avatar
#88 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
First of all, buybacks and/or forced registration historically has and will never work here. Every time it's tried by a city or state, you're going to expect 18-30% participation rate, if you're lucky, and a never ending flow of protests and calls for changes in laws until it's shut down. Rather ironically, local gun industries only see sharp rises in business whenever an anti-gun law is implemented, or even just proposed. Even better, individual state gun laws have only been becoming even more lax over the course of Obama's presidency, largely because of him whining about needing more gun control. It's also the reason why there's been ammo shortages because so many people start buying in bulk as soon as they feel something may change.

Also referring to your other post, shutting down gun companies would, first of all, never work, and secondly, would be absolutely horrible for not only the US, but several countries economies and militaries because the US gun trade is an international economic giant, and it's going to harm a lot more than gun owners should you force it to collapse. Alongside that, the flow of illegal guns into the country via smuggling is far too great to enforce. Ask any border patrol officer or cartel member. There is no practical, realistic way to actually find and decrease the amount of firearms there are in the US without resorting to war and/or enslavement of the people. Even assuming people will let you do that here, which like I already said, they will not.
User avatar
#91 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
A 20 % participation rate is expected from the buyback method, slowly, if made consistant it will work. And you should not shut down the gun companies, even in Spain we make and export guns. The thing is normal people should not have the right to have a gun. And to get there you must first regulate gun control, like Obama says and never does. Eventually people will be wary of having a gun, becouse it will be linked to death in their minds, not "I need one to protect myself"
User avatar
#92 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
I don't think you understood what I said.

That small percentage consist of the people who are willing to submit their guns. The rest are people who will go to lengths as far as burying their arsenal in their garden to hide them from the government or anyone they think is after them. If you did another buyback, no one would show up the second time.

See, Americans have this weird tendency to instinctively do the opposite of what any sort of government tells them to do. And like I said, gun control, at the state level at least, has only been decreased, and domestic gun sales have only increased since more vocal calls for gun control have been made. Why? Because a vast majority of gun owners like their guns and want to keep them, and feel that this world is too unsafe to not have a viable means of self-defense. Trying to get rid of them only makes them want to keep them more, because as our constitution put it since our country's founding, it's a god-given right that "shall not be infringed." And while politicians and other countries scream and whine about it as much as they can, there's literally no way that you could implement any wholesale gun control, or even change the minds of the people about it. It's part of the culture, and you can't really change that so easily like you may think.
User avatar
#95 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
It is defenetly a cultural thing. But this would be my solution:
1-Restrict the use of submachine guns to only military and police. And wait.
2-Restrict number of guns per person to 3 max. And wait
3-Ban anyone with a criminal record or inmigrant from having guns. And wiat.
4-Create a real regulation so that only a few minority of people can access "recreational guns". At this point it should not be a big deal to the people. And wait more.
5-Ban the selling of guns to all citicens.
6-Create programs to distroy remaining guns in the country by insentivising them.
This should work over a period of 15 years
#100 - lozarus (06/16/2016) [-]
Number 2 would already cause an uproar, so it would not work. People who like guns tend to have more than 3.
#99 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
1- Already implemented somewhat. You need to have what's called an FFL (Federal Firearms Licence) or an equivalent permit to purchase any automatic firearms. Despite being rather inefficient as a killing tool. They're horribly inaccurate and prohibitively expensive.
2- This has been proposed. Never has been able to nearly get enough support to pass on even a state or city level. Cited as being far too costly to implement and impossible to enforce, so you'll be stopped here.
3- Now that's surprising. Good luck not being immediately run out of the country or shot from both sides of the party for being so blatantly racist.
4- If 2-4 somehow were able to pass and you're still somehow in charge, you'd be definitely having a civil war on your hands.
5-6, same as 4. Trying something like that would be a death sentence.

You seem to not understand how ingrained the gun culture is in the US. Nor how laws are passed because there's many checks, balances, and regulations to keep any "totalitarian" laws from ever seeing the light of day. Not unless you somehow became a dictator, but that's another way to get a bounty on your head. 15 years is also waaaaay too short to even think something like that. You'd need at LEAST a couple generations to change people's minds so drastically, and even then, such a hard control historically only lasts a generation at most.

And before you even say, "Well they could just implement martial law and force them to submit with all our military high tech, right?" No law enforcement or military official would dare try it, because trying to subdue millions of people bunkering down and ready to fight for their rights is a terrifyingly hopeless pursuit. It'd be an insurgent war like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, but to an unprecedented scale, including half our military refusing to fire on civilians and turning on itself.
User avatar
#101 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
How can you think itìs totalitarian to ban guns?
So let me see if I get this right:
Americans don't want guns banned becouse it would hinder the possibility of a civil war, americans are scared of what the goberment can do and wish to have the power to overtake it if the time ever comes. Also for "domestic protection".
If this is the case, why not think about it: If there is ever a civil war, it will never be people vs goverment. It will always be: (some people + some people of goverment) vs (other people + other people of goverment) and the leaders WILL ARM the people for war on both sides.
And I'm sure guns bring more death to households than actual armed robbers.
User avatar
#111 - brisineo (06/16/2016) [-]
Trying to subvert the desires of more than 50% of Americans and discard any democratic process to implement an anti-gun law is what many of us would call totalitarian.

Americans don't want guns banned because first of all
1. Constitution says so, and our constitution was made with the intent that if the people so desire, or should the acting government overstep its bounds and attempt to subvert the people and/or strip them of their outlined rights, they would have the means to defend themselves to protect said rights. It originally intended for civilians to have the same means of weaponry that the government possesses to equal the playing field as much as possible. Take that as you will.
2. Preventative measure of war, not just with ourselves, but with other countries. Such an armed populace makes any land invasion impossible and creates a militia pool that vastly outnumbers any military.
3. Domestic self defense. Because our FBI statistics show that is how the vast majority of guns are used in this country, and if you take out suicide and violence between gang members as factors, death by gun is so rare in the US, that you're more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be caught in a mass shooting. Many charts shown to promote gun control don't discriminate or separate these statistics to askew these facts.

I don't get what you're trying to say about the civil wars though. Of course there's going to be a huge conflict within the government as well, but like I said, there'd have to be someone trying to take way too much control over the country in order to cause such a war. The US political system is complicated and slow, but mainly because it keeps someone crazy enough to push hard laws from even having the ability to try it.

And if you're implying that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot because you'll maybe get injured by mistake or children getting a hold of it, that's easily fixable with proper gun education and more of an individual fault for such misuse with a dangerous tool. Not like anyone is calling for cars to be regulated because of how many people that crash and die while driving them.
User avatar
#79 - iamnuff (06/16/2016) [-]
Would it work though? America has such a culture of "we deserve to have guns" and any move by the government to get rid of any is met by threats of riot.

Americans react to someone taking away their guns in the same way most men would react to someone offering to cut off their penis.

Not to mention, if gun companies are still making guns, then trading them for other things won't help. You'd need to restrict the amount of guns coming into the country or being made in the country first.
User avatar
#82 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
If americans know they have a lot of guns then the production should stop. I get that the goverment is set up and companies like Smith & Wesson won't want it. But it's the only first step you can take. Then insentivising the people by giving them things in exchange for their guns will slowly but shurely lower deaths by gun violence
#75 - Madrid, and terrorists are a different matter with different o…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. -1
User avatar
#76 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
lol
#69 - okok, I know I'll get hate by the american majority of this si…  [+] (16 new replies) 06/16/2016 on Ban guns. -2
User avatar
#123 - liero (06/16/2016) [-]
i don't know where in europe you live but guns sure as hell aren't illegal in the two countries i've lived in.

you just need a license, training and background check to get them
User avatar
#73 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
Paris? Or did you fucking forget already... lol
User avatar
#78 - spacemanae (06/16/2016) [-]
guns didnt help orlando, the boston bombings,...
#85 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
User avatar
#105 - spacemanae (06/16/2016) [-]
how is a picture of the paris shootings an argument? my argument is that in a country as saturated with guns as the US there are more shootings and massacres then in any other western country and that "you can protect yourself if you have a gun" is bullshit. because in the end the stats show that the US has more accidents involving guns and major massacres (not excluding knife or other types) then countries where guns are forbidden
User avatar
#106 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
and yet they can't do shit when it does happen there. Just beg for their lives. lol
User avatar
#107 - spacemanae (06/16/2016) [-]
in the US people cant do shit either. you guys have such a hero complex that you guys think that you can react faster then someone shooting up a place. what can we do? run, beg even. at least we don't have to worry about some crazy shooting up a bar every day, a kid shooting up a school or some sniper picking off people when he's crazy, gang violence that escalates into big shootouts,...
User avatar
#109 - spacemanae (06/16/2016) [-]
12 times? if it really worked that people could "defend themselves" then that list would be quite longer. a buzzfeed style list is no argument
User avatar
#112 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
you think that's all? Cops can only help you after the fact and they are not required to protect citizens en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

www.weeklystandard.com/is-it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-a-mass-shooting/article/690808
User avatar
#115 - spacemanae (06/16/2016) [-]
how is that list any better? concrats 2 tiny lists. in the article "i'm sure more meet this criteria" when talking about massacres prevented by gun owners. that does not inspire confidence. at least he should be able to include a database from police or research that provides evidence that more shootings have been prevented by gun owners then gun owners not being able to prevent a shooting.
User avatar
#118 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Since I doubt that many police are going to readily admit that they are useless. Again Warren vs DC en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
User avatar
#116 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
you can't count dead people if they aren't killed
User avatar
#117 - spacemanae (06/16/2016) [-]
if a police report is written, such things as "perpetrator killed by citizen with gun" would be included. that way there should be data available on how many times it occurs
User avatar
#75 - joselu (06/16/2016) [-]
Madrid, and terrorists are a different matter with different origins: Bush administration
User avatar
#76 - ihateeverybodytoo (06/16/2016) [-]
lol
#238 - **joselu used "*Roll 1, 0-999999999*"** **joselu rolls 494,… 11/04/2015 on Giveaway Time! 0
#86 - that already exists. The problem is that if you re-use a bull,… 08/27/2013 on Bullfighting +4
#14 - Apart from that obvious joke, the translators used the letter …  [+] (1 new reply) 08/16/2013 on Mr Bean +13
#19 - daftiduck (08/16/2013) [-]
Good job! With those two comments, you managed to net yourself a grand total of zero thumbs!
Here's your prize!
[ 25 Total ]