Upload
Login or register

kingmarston

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:12/28/2009
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1169 total,  1380 ,  211
Comment Thumbs: 8355 total,  9845 ,  1490
Content Level Progress: 32% (16/50)
Level 111 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 112 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 43% (43/100)
Level 283 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:3
Content Views:21647
Times Content Favorited:128 times
Total Comments Made:1822
FJ Points:9663
Favorite Tags: Hitler (2) | tags (2) | wwII (2)

latest user's comments

#213 - Also the fact that it has 90 million gun-owners. Which serves … 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! 0
#203 - I'm sure the British Government wished they disarmed its colonies... 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! +3
#201 - To protect ourselves from Tyrannical Governments.  [+] (5 new replies) 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! +2
User avatar
#230 - jokeface (01/13/2013) [-]
If a government has reached a point that you feel the need to shoot them, then they already have the resources to overpower you in terms of firearms.
User avatar
#277 - jafkdb (01/13/2013) [-]
That's what the British thought.
User avatar
#308 - foxtrotalpha (01/13/2013) [-]
The British were 3000 miles away. Also what will guns do to tanks, drones, airplanes, helicopters, and missiles?
User avatar
#335 - jafkdb (01/13/2013) [-]
I was just referring to the American Revolution, where a vastly outnumbered and under equipped army was able to defeat a much stronger one.

Also, if things got bad enough that there was a 2nd American Revolution, I would think that the US military would be split as well, so both sides would have some of the heavier equipment.
User avatar
#233 - jokeface (01/13/2013) [-]
I actually support the people's right to have guns but that was just a dumb argument for it in my opinion.
#191 - I'm sure that's what the British thought too. You d…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! 0
User avatar
#205 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
Congratulations. You have just proved that it is nearly impossible for the government to turn against it's people, and thereby turning the 2nd amendment obsolete. Because you're right. In order for the government to turn against it's people, it would have to think about the consequences: how the world would react, how the entire nation would react, even it's own army, and whether the plan would go through or not.
User avatar
#213 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
Also the fact that it has 90 million gun-owners. Which serves as a hell of a deterrent.
#175 - "yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s a… 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! +1
#173 - And that's the ENTIRE POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Nothing w…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! +1
User avatar
#177 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
as i've said before. the army clearly has an advantage in terms of just about everything. Let me remind you of the laws that restrict high-powered weapons such as RPGs, mortars, etc. if the government exerts control through tyranny then yes, the people can fight back with their guns. But again, like i said in the first post. It might slow them, but it won't stop them. the difference in power level is simply too high
User avatar
#191 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
I'm sure that's what the British thought too.

You don't seem to understand that people can capture/import gear as well as create their own. You can make a very powerful explosive just by using a few common household ingredients and fertilizer. Why do you think the Taliban have been so tough to beat?

And you don't seem to understand the power it would take for an order of that sort, it just couldn't happen with our current government. If one could control Congress, Presidency, and the Supreme court they would still have to gain control of the other 50 states that each have a legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. As well as their own National Guard Units. So just think about it.
User avatar
#205 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
Congratulations. You have just proved that it is nearly impossible for the government to turn against it's people, and thereby turning the 2nd amendment obsolete. Because you're right. In order for the government to turn against it's people, it would have to think about the consequences: how the world would react, how the entire nation would react, even it's own army, and whether the plan would go through or not.
User avatar
#213 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
Also the fact that it has 90 million gun-owners. Which serves as a hell of a deterrent.
#293 - Comment deleted 01/13/2013 on Standards...We don't have them -1
#165 - Umm... Most soldiers would defect if such an order was given t…  [+] (7 new replies) 01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that! +5
User avatar
#168 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
did you miss the part where i said "if they do decide to do it"?
I think you misinterpreted my point there. My point wasn't if the government decided to take away the guns forcibly. it was if the government decides to just turn against its people i.e. fuck everything we're gonna be tyrannical.
the constitution would be meaningless if the government decides to control its people. just because it's law doesn't mean it'll stop them. just like how killing is illegal yet people can still do it.
and how does Afghanistan even fit into the situation here.
User avatar
#175 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
"yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc. "

The Taliban have fertilizer and rusty AK's and we still haven't been able to defeat them after a decade of war. See my point?
User avatar
#173 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
And that's the ENTIRE POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Nothing will be able to stop them from going tyrannical once our firearms have been seized. If they DO decide to go psycho we have a means to fight back with.
User avatar
#177 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
as i've said before. the army clearly has an advantage in terms of just about everything. Let me remind you of the laws that restrict high-powered weapons such as RPGs, mortars, etc. if the government exerts control through tyranny then yes, the people can fight back with their guns. But again, like i said in the first post. It might slow them, but it won't stop them. the difference in power level is simply too high
User avatar
#191 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
I'm sure that's what the British thought too.

You don't seem to understand that people can capture/import gear as well as create their own. You can make a very powerful explosive just by using a few common household ingredients and fertilizer. Why do you think the Taliban have been so tough to beat?

And you don't seem to understand the power it would take for an order of that sort, it just couldn't happen with our current government. If one could control Congress, Presidency, and the Supreme court they would still have to gain control of the other 50 states that each have a legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. As well as their own National Guard Units. So just think about it.
User avatar
#205 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
Congratulations. You have just proved that it is nearly impossible for the government to turn against it's people, and thereby turning the 2nd amendment obsolete. Because you're right. In order for the government to turn against it's people, it would have to think about the consequences: how the world would react, how the entire nation would react, even it's own army, and whether the plan would go through or not.
User avatar
#213 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
Also the fact that it has 90 million gun-owners. Which serves as a hell of a deterrent.
#40 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 01/13/2013 on super guy +19
#43 - huttbug (01/13/2013) [-]
#38 - Picture  [+] (3 new replies) 01/13/2013 on super guy +6
#39 - huttbug (01/13/2013) [-]
#40 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
#43 - huttbug (01/13/2013) [-]