x
Click to expand

lilnuggetbob

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Consoles Owned: PC
Video Games Played: Garry's mod, Arma 2 OA, War thunder
X-box Gamertag: Xbox? More like x-gay
Interests: Your mom, dicks, gayness, dragon dildos
Date Signed Up:3/22/2012
Last Login:4/21/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#11961
Comment Ranking:#2626
Highest Content Rank:#1236
Highest Comment Rank:#1076
Content Thumbs: 10706 total,  12239 ,  1533
Comment Thumbs: 7539 total,  9365 ,  1826
Content Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 204 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 205 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 33% (33/100)
Level 267 Comments: Pure Win → Level 268 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:407399
Times Content Favorited:788 times
Total Comments Made:3053
FJ Points:8234
Favorite Tags: 4Chan (3) | comp (3) | to (3) | 4 (2) | a (2) | bad (2) | chan (2) | Cute (2) | funny (2) | gmod (2) | How (2) | humor (2) | is (2) | k (2) | Russian (2) | tags (2) | Tank (2) | the (2) | Time (2) | WTF (2)

latest user's comments

#35 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#34 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#33 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#32 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#31 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#30 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#29 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 12/29/2014 on murica +1
User avatar #148 - heartlessrobot (12/30/2014) [-]
Butthurt eurofag anon thumbed you down.
#28 - Picture  [+] (12 new replies) 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#316 - anonymous (12/30/2014) [-]
Except nothing you have posted has any truth or facts behind it you lying sack of shit.
#36 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#35 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#34 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#33 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#32 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#31 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#30 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#29 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #148 - heartlessrobot (12/30/2014) [-]
Butthurt eurofag anon thumbed you down.
#122 - How would that still stop like any crime? Citation ne… 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#103 - Yes, thank you for correcting me. BTW i ****** up w… 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#54 - "The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#51 - Also forgot to add, if you purchase a firearm online they do a…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
User avatar #93 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
Guns you order on line need to be sent to an FFL dealer. The post office isn't. (Or, mine isn't more accurately) To get an FFL you need to have the government crawl up your ass and look around with a 10,000 candle power floodlight. If they find any shit you're passed up for the licence. It's very hard to get an FFL, and most people don't have the cash for the process.
User avatar #103 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Yes, thank you for correcting me.
BTW i fucked up when i said post office, i meant to say a nearby gun store owner.
#49 - A: Already exists B: What would define "severe mental…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#53 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally, or purchase your own due to a failed background check, it would become that much more difficult to get your hands on a firearm. This would, at the least, stop a percentage of school shootings from ever occurring.

Although a large amount of what is mentioned in that video is true, the part mentioned, about criminals illegally purchasing weapons through various means is directed at career criminals. Making it illegal for someone with, for example, violent Schizophrenia, or a history of violent crime, to ever own a gun, would make it more likely for people planning on executing a spree-style event, to be caught beforehand.

The part about the law not being simple because it is 18 pages is asinine. Laws must go into the minutia of detail, to prevent loopholes.
With regards to the legality of handing someone a gun, on private property, that's juts straight up horse shit. You can legally allow the use of a firearm anywhere on private property, so long as the weapon does not leave the property in the hands of anyone other than the owner.

And yes, background checks do exist, but making them more stringent could not possibly hurt.

Also, as far as I know, the vast majority of gun sales still occur in person, specifically because of those checks, I'd imagine. It's easier to pick a gun up from a gun shop, than it is to pay your phone bill over the phone.

Even if ONE school shooting is prevented by these measures, what if that ONE is the next sandy hook? what if 28 people aren't killed.

I agree that gun-free zones are retarded. At the very least armed guards would make more sense. "you're not allowed a gun in here, but if you have one, we literally have no way of stopping you"
Though having seen the piss-poor training even the police are given, I'd hope it would be more in-depth training for these guards.
User avatar #54 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
"The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally"
What if there is a kid (for this example ill say he's 15) that hears a criminal breaking into his home, so he grabs his fathers shotgun/rifle/handgun and shoots the criminal
Under your suggested law, he would be a criminal for using a gun that was not his in self defence, most likely ruining his life because he tried to defend it from a criminal.


Yes, backround checks might save people from one mass shooting that COULD save 20 or more people, however, more people might end up getting fucked over, and killed because of it.

I'm pretty sure its a felony to bring a gun onto school property anyways.

Also when you are purchasing a gun from a gun store, you normally have to write down stuff like "Are you a criminal?" and, if the gun dealer later finds out you lied on that, you can get in trouble.
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#45 - How would backround checks have of stopped almost any of the s…  [+] (10 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#46 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
From my understanding, Gun free zone means you aren't allowed to enter with a weapon.
If you, for example, shoot the unarmed guards, then walk through the checkpoint, you have bypassed the gun free zone.

Also, thats ONE entire school that hasnt been shot. Perhaps that's worth doing?
And no, background checks on firearms would prevent people with A: violent criminal records and B: A history of severe mental illness being able to purchase guns, alongside the fact that it would become illegal to carry a gun registered to someone else, even in an open-carry state.

All weapons used in the Sandy-Hook, and in-fact most, school shootings, are usually legally purchased, and owned.
User avatar #51 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Also forgot to add, if you purchase a firearm online they do automatic backround checks while sending the gun to a post office (Unless you have a Federal Firearms License, you can not get one sent to your door.)
User avatar #93 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
Guns you order on line need to be sent to an FFL dealer. The post office isn't. (Or, mine isn't more accurately) To get an FFL you need to have the government crawl up your ass and look around with a 10,000 candle power floodlight. If they find any shit you're passed up for the licence. It's very hard to get an FFL, and most people don't have the cash for the process.
User avatar #103 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Yes, thank you for correcting me.
BTW i fucked up when i said post office, i meant to say a nearby gun store owner.
User avatar #49 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
A: Already exists
B: What would define "severe mental illness"?

"alongside the fact that it would become illegal to carry a gun registered to someone else, even in an open-carry state. " Bad idea, explained here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IN9GiyRzKI

All weapons used in the Sandy-Hook, and in-fact most, school shootings, are usually legally purchased, and owned.
Exactly, backround checks would not have of stopped any of them.
#53 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally, or purchase your own due to a failed background check, it would become that much more difficult to get your hands on a firearm. This would, at the least, stop a percentage of school shootings from ever occurring.

Although a large amount of what is mentioned in that video is true, the part mentioned, about criminals illegally purchasing weapons through various means is directed at career criminals. Making it illegal for someone with, for example, violent Schizophrenia, or a history of violent crime, to ever own a gun, would make it more likely for people planning on executing a spree-style event, to be caught beforehand.

The part about the law not being simple because it is 18 pages is asinine. Laws must go into the minutia of detail, to prevent loopholes.
With regards to the legality of handing someone a gun, on private property, that's juts straight up horse shit. You can legally allow the use of a firearm anywhere on private property, so long as the weapon does not leave the property in the hands of anyone other than the owner.

And yes, background checks do exist, but making them more stringent could not possibly hurt.

Also, as far as I know, the vast majority of gun sales still occur in person, specifically because of those checks, I'd imagine. It's easier to pick a gun up from a gun shop, than it is to pay your phone bill over the phone.

Even if ONE school shooting is prevented by these measures, what if that ONE is the next sandy hook? what if 28 people aren't killed.

I agree that gun-free zones are retarded. At the very least armed guards would make more sense. "you're not allowed a gun in here, but if you have one, we literally have no way of stopping you"
Though having seen the piss-poor training even the police are given, I'd hope it would be more in-depth training for these guards.
User avatar #54 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
"The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally"
What if there is a kid (for this example ill say he's 15) that hears a criminal breaking into his home, so he grabs his fathers shotgun/rifle/handgun and shoots the criminal
Under your suggested law, he would be a criminal for using a gun that was not his in self defence, most likely ruining his life because he tried to defend it from a criminal.


Yes, backround checks might save people from one mass shooting that COULD save 20 or more people, however, more people might end up getting fucked over, and killed because of it.

I'm pretty sure its a felony to bring a gun onto school property anyways.

Also when you are purchasing a gun from a gun store, you normally have to write down stuff like "Are you a criminal?" and, if the gun dealer later finds out you lied on that, you can get in trouble.
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#1 - I love inspect element.  [+] (1 new reply) 12/29/2014 on Gotta go faster -1
#2 - anonymous (12/30/2014) [-]
Or you know... you can edit Wikipedia articles
#9 - Its sarcastic humor..... 12/29/2014 on Musiczz +1
#42 - Its making fun of people who hate guns and use terms like &quo…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +9
#156 - anonymous (12/29/2014) [-]
''Hate guns''

Or just have a different opinion.
#37 - all of the links 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#36 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#35 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#34 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#33 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#31 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#30 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#29 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0

items

Total unique items point value: 1570 / Total items point value: 2120
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #28 to #27 - lilnuggetbob (03/21/2015) [-]
OP was not a fag
User avatar #24 - atheisttsiehta (06/27/2014) [-]
You pass
#20 - drewbridge (07/15/2013) [-]
Wear a seatbelt, 			******
Wear a seatbelt, ******
 Friends (0)