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

hide menu

misterbatman

Rank #3122 on Content
misterbatman Avatar Level 169 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to misterbatman Block misterbatman Invite misterbatman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:11/15/2012
Last Login:12/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#3122
Comment Ranking:#15618
Highest Content Rank:#2088
Highest Comment Rank:#5827
Content Thumbs: 4355 total,  5093 ,  738
Comment Thumbs: 789 total,  1272 ,  483
Content Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 140 Content: Faptastic → Level 141 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 169 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 170 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:192863
Times Content Favorited:212 times
Total Comments Made:403
FJ Points:4694
Favorite Tags: The Game (11) | Pokemon (3)

latest user's comments

#87 - ******* are gonna nig whether civilians can own g… 12/01/2014 on Racism 0
#85 - So being presented with evidence of responsible gun-owning adu…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/01/2014 on Racism 0
User avatar #86 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
No - because it wouldn´t even be necessary with stricter gun regulation.

>implying I´d parttake in a war.
>implying you could "fuck up my shit"
User avatar #88 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
>implying herp derp muh conscientious objection
Faggot.
User avatar #87 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Niggers are gonna nig whether civilians can own guns or not. The rioters aren't using guns, they're using tanks of gasoline and sledgehammers to wreak their niggardry on St. Louis. If there were stricter gun control in place here, these fine people would not be any better armed than the rioting thugs and they would be ineffective at guarding the place from the slavering hordes of looters.
#135 - hnnnnng du loopst so gut 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
#132 - Same here! My ***** .  [+] (1 new reply) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
User avatar #134 - haitianfighter (12/01/2014) [-]
damn right son! I got the bitone (factory sights though). I'm a Marine POG so I fire M16s and M9s but I wanted my own and went for this one and I'm really satisfied with it.
#92 - I specifically said that it was hard countered by a FV user wi…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
#106 - angelusprimus (12/01/2014) [-]

But Kunst des Fechtens does not correspond to Djem So. It is aggressive frontal style far more corresponding to form VII Vaapad than Djem So. Djem So would be far more similar to Liberi's Italian style that is defensive style with many counter attacks.
#105 - angelusprimus has deleted their comment.
#65 - The AK is a durable, reliable bastard, but I prefer the feel o… 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
#64 - Not if they were halfway skilled. Makashi is hard-countered by…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
#77 - angelusprimus (12/01/2014) [-]
Makashi with its limited movement and duelist mindset is actually very effective against defense-retaliation style of fifth form. Good counter to Makashi is either form Ataru with countering the motion shy Makashi with massive motion or Vapaad.
User avatar #92 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
I specifically said that it was hard countered by a FV user with a crossguard. I can testify to that with real-world experience using kendo and German-style longsword fencing techniques (the inspiration for Djem So) against a skilled foil fencer/Wudang fencer (the inspiration for Makashi). Without a crossguard, a Makashi user takes an equally skilled Djem So user 8/10 times; with a crossguard, however, the Djem So user gets a nearly insurmountable advantage with the ability to catch and manipulate the other fighter's saber, turning the advantage to the Djem-So user.
#106 - angelusprimus (12/01/2014) [-]

But Kunst des Fechtens does not correspond to Djem So. It is aggressive frontal style far more corresponding to form VII Vaapad than Djem So. Djem So would be far more similar to Liberi's Italian style that is defensive style with many counter attacks.
#105 - angelusprimus has deleted their comment.
#63 - If you're even halfway skilled, you never touch the crossguard… 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
#62 - Cortosis weave, ************  [+] (1 new reply) 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
User avatar #110 - johnnyiscool (12/01/2014) [-]
Okay, so the problem with that is that I can't recall that ever being mentioned in the movies. The lightsabers in the previous films clearly aren't made of it, considering lightsabers are cut in half like once per film. It's perfectly fine if that's what the new one is made of, but that material hasn't been introduced in the any of the films, at least not from what I can remember.
#61 - Cortosis weave, ************ 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
#62 - Never fired SCAR, but they look pretty sweet.  [+] (3 new replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
#110 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
I've never fired one, but there's no way they're $2600 sweet, when it does nothing an AR can't do.
User avatar #133 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
It can fire a full-sized rifle round, but it doesn't do anything and FAL or G3 can't
#144 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
Oh, the .308 version? Yeah, then you're talking $3600.
Or for $2k less you could get an M1A, or a perfectly decent AR10.
#59 - They're okay. They have nothing on the M16 or pic related, though.  [+] (14 new replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
#64 - mikeoxlong (12/01/2014) [-]
Do you know literally anything about guns? Kalashnikovs shit on both of those
User avatar #139 - fuelnfire (12/01/2014) [-]
In what regard? An AK might be more durable than the SCAR physically, but AR's, and SCAR's are no slouches.
#140 - mikeoxlong (12/01/2014) [-]
The comment I was replying to stated M16's and M1 garand's are better rifles than the AK-47. Not the SCAR.
User avatar #141 - fuelnfire (12/01/2014) [-]
Original M16 was nothing special, the M1 Garand I'd disagree. At the time, the AK is a better designed rifle though.
User avatar #77 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
AK's are good but they're by far from perfect.

The AR platform is a good contestant, and the M1 Garand is an entirely different rifle.

That being said - get all three.
#120 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
I would say the AK is the best of the three, all things considered. M1 isn't really "modern" so I wouldn't really even compare the two.

AK is just so simple and so reliable. Not to mention battle proven by dozens of countries since 1947. More effective round, little to no maintenance required, runs well dirty, no ammo picky-ness, at around $500-$600 for a top of the line Bulgarian model. Compare to an ar where the bare minimum for the most basic model is around $600, on up to well past $1200 if you have more money than sense.
#67 - spamm (12/01/2014) [-]
Glocks are pretty badass.

pic related.

Its a glock.
#69 - Nanico (12/01/2014) [-]
Please educate yourself, that is an AK-47
User avatar #65 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
The AK is a durable, reliable bastard, but I prefer the feel of the M16 (and I'm a better shot with it). The M1 Garand is a different animal altogether, and for a serious marksman it's a much better weapon than the AK or the M16. There's a reason Patton called it "the greatest implement of war ever made".
#61 - butwhynot (12/01/2014) [-]
M16 is cool. Though I prefer the M4 myself. I am starting to like the SCAR more and more as well, the MK17 is quite nice.
User avatar #62 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Never fired SCAR, but they look pretty sweet.
#110 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
I've never fired one, but there's no way they're $2600 sweet, when it does nothing an AR can't do.
User avatar #133 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
It can fire a full-sized rifle round, but it doesn't do anything and FAL or G3 can't
#144 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
Oh, the .308 version? Yeah, then you're talking $3600.
Or for $2k less you could get an M1A, or a perfectly decent AR10.
#54 - ljxjlos Here you go, you freedomless kraut **** .  [+] (5 new replies) 12/01/2014 on Racism 0
User avatar #84 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yeah...that really doesn´t change a thing.
User avatar #85 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
So being presented with evidence of responsible gun-owning adults exercising their rights to defend the life and property of another doesn't even make you reconsider your views in the slightest?

I'll reiterate: you're a freedomless kraut shit, and I hope I get the chance to fuck your shit personally if you guys start another World War.
User avatar #86 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
No - because it wouldn´t even be necessary with stricter gun regulation.

>implying I´d parttake in a war.
>implying you could "fuck up my shit"
User avatar #88 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
>implying herp derp muh conscientious objection
Faggot.
User avatar #87 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Niggers are gonna nig whether civilians can own guns or not. The rioters aren't using guns, they're using tanks of gasoline and sledgehammers to wreak their niggardry on St. Louis. If there were stricter gun control in place here, these fine people would not be any better armed than the rioting thugs and they would be ineffective at guarding the place from the slavering hordes of looters.
#58 - **** yeah, 'pubs. 12/01/2014 on Step up your game, 1956 0
#52 - Only similar gifs, for my benefit as much for anyone else. 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +2
#50 - You claim our document is outdated, and I'll agree. There are …  [+] (4 new replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +2
User avatar #143 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Also: Freedom itself is pretty much a myth. In a society like ours, with as many people on the earth as we have, it´s pretty much impossibkle to "be free". Back in the past, with 1/1000 as many people....maybe, freedom was a thing back then, when people did not have to interact with each other at such a big scale. But the more people have to interact, the more rules we have and the more rules we have, the less freedom. It´s not nice, but that´s how it is. That´s, by the way, pretty much the reason why many people deem their governments "tyrannical", too - the more people, the more international contact and interaction, the more rules. And as our world grows more intervined and multinational, the more rules are needed to keep it working - that´s how overly law-restricted societies come into existance.
User avatar #154 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
This is actually pretty much spot on, I can't argue with your thesis here. Regardless, there are human rights that are inalienable, and they are inalienable as long as there are people who believe in them fervently enough that they are willing to fight for them. If I am willing to bear arms (and die) in defense of my right to bear arms, then that right has not been taken from me, and I never lose it. As Epicurus so famously put: "Death means nothing to me, for when I am, Death has not yet come; and when Death comes, I am no longer." When I'm dead, I lose all my rights as a human anyway, so it doesn't matter that I died defending my rights.
User avatar #142 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
If you really think that your guns are for protecting yourself against the government, you´re lying to yourself. There are two possibilities in case the government actually turns tyrannical:
a) the military isn´t on their side: In this case, the government will fail, nothing will happen and you´ll life savely even without your weapons - no to mention that no government would turn tyrannical without the support of the military.
b) the military IS on the side of the government and those who oppose are slaughtered while trying to fight against Battle-Helicopters, highly trained operatives, airplane-carriers, fighting jets, etc, etc with handguns.
In the atomic age, "safety from the government" is a myth. If you think your government is tyrannical or bad, become a politician. That´s how you change things. Or well, that how you may try to change things.

"I for one feel significantly safer knowing there are other mature, armed adults nearby." - Well, have fun with that, I´ll just stay here and feel safe because there are no mass shootings, gun-wielding niggers as opposed to black men or armed incesteous Rednecks around here and because our police are actually mentally trained on being stable enough to not shoot people.
#149 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Nice black/white fallacy, buddy. As a matter of fact, there is a third alternative that's more likely to happen in the event of a full-scale revolt: the people will amass weaponry and fortify their homes and towns, using their knowledge of the terrain to engage in guerrilla warfare; there would be significant loss of life on the ground by both civilians and the military before the government determined that air superiority was necessary. After the first few towns are carpetbombed, the individual members of the military will realize that they are slaughtering their own brothers and sisters, and many of them will lay down their arms. Americans are fine when we're slaughtering sand-niggers or killing viet cong, but we're not partial to firing hellfire missiles into downtown Atlanta or blowing up buildings in New York--as a matter of fact, we have a very long history of not being partial to terrorist attacks on the home front. You could even say we built our reputation on that.

You're a weak, frail kraut bastard, and at the end of the day you'll see that your dependence on your government and your faith in your "mentally trained" SS police force is misplaced.

Pic fucking related.
#45 - With rioting negroids in the streets, the least of our worries…  [+] (12 new replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +2
User avatar #68 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
I honestly wouldn't bother, he's an idiot that's had his spiel before and he'll never understand.
User avatar #137 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
"and he´ll never understand" - well, of cause I won´t understand a wrong opinion. And wrong it is. If you need a gun to feel free, I can only pity you.
User avatar #145 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
>wrong opinion

That's something folks.
User avatar #146 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
>implying wrong opinions don´t exist.

"All jews should die"
"All blacks should die"
"All whites should die"

Seriously, just because everyone has different opinions doesn´t mean that there aren´t any that are fundamentaly wrong.
User avatar #147 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
Oxford dictionary defines an opinion as:

"A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge..."

That being said, while you can argue a philosophy of wrong/right opinions, based on the English language, it is inappropriate phrase and basically an oxymoron.

If theoretically, I hold the idea that all blacks should die. That is my opinion. Whether or not that opinion is based on logic, knowledge, or fact. It is not a wrong opinion, because it is an opinion. You can argue the fundamental morality behind the statement, but the opinion itself is not right or wrong.

That being said, the ownership of guns is culturally an entirely different issue from where you live. Your opinion, although not right or wrong, means nothing to us. Especially when you argue purely from opinion, not facts through statistics or logical reasoning.

If you want to come live over here and deal with the bullshit corruption in our government that is arming the cartels which in turn is arming gangs (which is where most of the gun related crime actually comes from to begin with,) then be my guest. Help us out, but don't be the guy that walks with steel pegged boot and carries a big stick but isn't willing to dish out the time to try to fix the problem. Seriously, this country alongside Russia are some of the biggest arms dealers in the world. People in this country just don't shoot other people because they decide to one day. They're either mental nut cases to begin with or they're in a gang related shooting.
User avatar #148 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, because the OD is the one and only scale to judge. And because "wrong opinions" isn´t a term that is used and understood by nearly everyone.

You want logical reasoning? Less guns = less crimes. Easy as this. You might come with "different circumstances", but the facts stay. Stricter gun laws would, after a period where only the criminals have funs, lead to less guns and less crime. It´s that easy. It would be a slow and harmful way, but slow progress is better than no progress. Even corruption would be less of a problem, because after all, with less guns available, the way that those guns go is easier to see. They can be traced and the source can be found and executed, be it criminals or be it corrupt politicians.

I don´t even deny that it would first lead to a huge push-up on crime rates, but a country as big as America has to look onto things on far sight. And on far sight, there has to be a point where we start to abolish guns and the idea that violence is a good thing, or nothing will change.

User avatar #152 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Also, nobody with a CC permit in America thinks violence is good, or they wouldn't be able to get their CC permit. Only those who a) already think violence is good and b) carry and obtain their weapons illegally commit gun crimes.
#151 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security." - Benjamin Franklin

See, this is why you're a German. You just can't understand what it's like to have your human rights.
User avatar #153 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yet again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM.

Understand it, fucker. And no, I´m not german because "I don´t understand what it´s like to have my human rights" - NO, I´m german because I was born in fucking Germany you fucking inbred retard. Because that´s how you become a member of a fucking country.
User avatar #155 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
No, I'm sorry, let me rephrase: you don't understand freedom because you're German. You live in a moderately socialist authoritarian shitpile, living the illusion of an enlightened life. You've never had the liberties afforded to someone living in a more libertarian state (America is far from libertarian today, but the unamended constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed were the most libertarian legislature of their time), so you cannot understand the feeling of knowing you have those liberties. There is a cognitive bias which you are suffering from right this moment called the Curse of Knowledge--it's a legitimate metacognitive disorder caused when a person is unable to understand the position of another because they feel more intelligent. You feel enlightened on your pedestal of gun control and are unable to perceive the liberation we savages feel by exercising our rights as human beings.
User avatar #156 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
You...you really do believe that, do you? You really think that every right is a good one? Man, I hope you never get into any position of power.
User avatar #161 - misterbatman (12/02/2014) [-]
Yes, every right is a good one. Human beings should be allowed to do anything they want so long as it doesn't harm another human being or infringe upon their rights. Simply owning or carrying a gun does no harm. Firing at another human being without justification is fundamentally wrong, but my right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
#44 - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED  [+] (6 new replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +4
User avatar #46 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Cpt America >>> Batman

OUTDATED. FUCKING. OUTDATED.

Seriously, it´s not that hard to get. Back then, there weren´t even 6-shot-revolvers. There was no possibility of dangerous shoot-outs, schoolshootings, niggers robbing stores, white guys going crazy, etc, etc - but there was a danger of wild animals, the british empire, etc, etc - this changed. And the rules need to change, too, because they are retarded.

Also, on your other comment:
Yuropoor, jealous of your freedoms.
You DO realize that the "freedom" to carry a gun is equal to the freedom of never being able to feel safe, do you?
User avatar #50 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
You claim our document is outdated, and I'll agree. There are parts of it that need to be rewritten or removed entirely. The Bill of Rights, however, is the greatest summary of human rights ever instituted. Our government has, over the past few decades, become more and more tyrannical. Dangerous wildlife still exists. Hunting is still a means of feeding my family. Niggers gonna nig. It doesn't matter whether I'm firing a flintlock or a m1911--my right to bear arms in defense of my own life is sacred. My freedom to do so does not take the back seat to your ineptitude and your fear, because if you're that big of a pussy you can get the fuck out of the country. I for one feel significantly safer knowing there are other mature, armed adults nearby.

Here's the main point: my rights mean more than your feelings, every time.
User avatar #143 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Also: Freedom itself is pretty much a myth. In a society like ours, with as many people on the earth as we have, it´s pretty much impossibkle to "be free". Back in the past, with 1/1000 as many people....maybe, freedom was a thing back then, when people did not have to interact with each other at such a big scale. But the more people have to interact, the more rules we have and the more rules we have, the less freedom. It´s not nice, but that´s how it is. That´s, by the way, pretty much the reason why many people deem their governments "tyrannical", too - the more people, the more international contact and interaction, the more rules. And as our world grows more intervined and multinational, the more rules are needed to keep it working - that´s how overly law-restricted societies come into existance.
User avatar #154 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
This is actually pretty much spot on, I can't argue with your thesis here. Regardless, there are human rights that are inalienable, and they are inalienable as long as there are people who believe in them fervently enough that they are willing to fight for them. If I am willing to bear arms (and die) in defense of my right to bear arms, then that right has not been taken from me, and I never lose it. As Epicurus so famously put: "Death means nothing to me, for when I am, Death has not yet come; and when Death comes, I am no longer." When I'm dead, I lose all my rights as a human anyway, so it doesn't matter that I died defending my rights.
User avatar #142 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
If you really think that your guns are for protecting yourself against the government, you´re lying to yourself. There are two possibilities in case the government actually turns tyrannical:
a) the military isn´t on their side: In this case, the government will fail, nothing will happen and you´ll life savely even without your weapons - no to mention that no government would turn tyrannical without the support of the military.
b) the military IS on the side of the government and those who oppose are slaughtered while trying to fight against Battle-Helicopters, highly trained operatives, airplane-carriers, fighting jets, etc, etc with handguns.
In the atomic age, "safety from the government" is a myth. If you think your government is tyrannical or bad, become a politician. That´s how you change things. Or well, that how you may try to change things.

"I for one feel significantly safer knowing there are other mature, armed adults nearby." - Well, have fun with that, I´ll just stay here and feel safe because there are no mass shootings, gun-wielding niggers as opposed to black men or armed incesteous Rednecks around here and because our police are actually mentally trained on being stable enough to not shoot people.
#149 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Nice black/white fallacy, buddy. As a matter of fact, there is a third alternative that's more likely to happen in the event of a full-scale revolt: the people will amass weaponry and fortify their homes and towns, using their knowledge of the terrain to engage in guerrilla warfare; there would be significant loss of life on the ground by both civilians and the military before the government determined that air superiority was necessary. After the first few towns are carpetbombed, the individual members of the military will realize that they are slaughtering their own brothers and sisters, and many of them will lay down their arms. Americans are fine when we're slaughtering sand-niggers or killing viet cong, but we're not partial to firing hellfire missiles into downtown Atlanta or blowing up buildings in New York--as a matter of fact, we have a very long history of not being partial to terrorist attacks on the home front. You could even say we built our reputation on that.

You're a weak, frail kraut bastard, and at the end of the day you'll see that your dependence on your government and your faith in your "mentally trained" SS police force is misplaced.

Pic fucking related.
#42 - >this text is not green and you are a moron >not rec…  [+] (16 new replies) 11/30/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +2
User avatar #43 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
It doesn´t need to be green, you do realize that, do you?
What part of "the second amendement is outdated and need to reworkes and other countries, like my home-country Germany for example are working perfectly fine without hordes of gunwielding faggots endangering everything that breathes" do you not understand?
also:
>2014
>not being liberal
User avatar #131 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
The federalist papers elaborated completely on the intentions of the bill of rights. The second amendment give the right to citizens to possess any form of weapon and cannot be restricted from owning what is currently in use by the US military. Any sort of restriction is unconstitutional in the US
#150 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Goddamn right.
User avatar #45 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
With rioting negroids in the streets, the least of our worries are the responsibly armed civilians in America. Also, the Second Amendment exists to protect us from our government in the possibility that it becomes too tyrannical. If you disarm the population, the only two groups who have guns are criminals and the government. Neither of those groups are looking out for the welfare of the populace. You're just another yuropoor who's jealous of muh freedoms.
also:
>being liberal
>ever
User avatar #68 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
I honestly wouldn't bother, he's an idiot that's had his spiel before and he'll never understand.
User avatar #137 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
"and he´ll never understand" - well, of cause I won´t understand a wrong opinion. And wrong it is. If you need a gun to feel free, I can only pity you.
User avatar #145 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
>wrong opinion

That's something folks.
User avatar #146 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
>implying wrong opinions don´t exist.

"All jews should die"
"All blacks should die"
"All whites should die"

Seriously, just because everyone has different opinions doesn´t mean that there aren´t any that are fundamentaly wrong.
User avatar #147 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
Oxford dictionary defines an opinion as:

"A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge..."

That being said, while you can argue a philosophy of wrong/right opinions, based on the English language, it is inappropriate phrase and basically an oxymoron.

If theoretically, I hold the idea that all blacks should die. That is my opinion. Whether or not that opinion is based on logic, knowledge, or fact. It is not a wrong opinion, because it is an opinion. You can argue the fundamental morality behind the statement, but the opinion itself is not right or wrong.

That being said, the ownership of guns is culturally an entirely different issue from where you live. Your opinion, although not right or wrong, means nothing to us. Especially when you argue purely from opinion, not facts through statistics or logical reasoning.

If you want to come live over here and deal with the bullshit corruption in our government that is arming the cartels which in turn is arming gangs (which is where most of the gun related crime actually comes from to begin with,) then be my guest. Help us out, but don't be the guy that walks with steel pegged boot and carries a big stick but isn't willing to dish out the time to try to fix the problem. Seriously, this country alongside Russia are some of the biggest arms dealers in the world. People in this country just don't shoot other people because they decide to one day. They're either mental nut cases to begin with or they're in a gang related shooting.
User avatar #148 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, because the OD is the one and only scale to judge. And because "wrong opinions" isn´t a term that is used and understood by nearly everyone.

You want logical reasoning? Less guns = less crimes. Easy as this. You might come with "different circumstances", but the facts stay. Stricter gun laws would, after a period where only the criminals have funs, lead to less guns and less crime. It´s that easy. It would be a slow and harmful way, but slow progress is better than no progress. Even corruption would be less of a problem, because after all, with less guns available, the way that those guns go is easier to see. They can be traced and the source can be found and executed, be it criminals or be it corrupt politicians.

I don´t even deny that it would first lead to a huge push-up on crime rates, but a country as big as America has to look onto things on far sight. And on far sight, there has to be a point where we start to abolish guns and the idea that violence is a good thing, or nothing will change.

User avatar #152 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Also, nobody with a CC permit in America thinks violence is good, or they wouldn't be able to get their CC permit. Only those who a) already think violence is good and b) carry and obtain their weapons illegally commit gun crimes.
#151 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security." - Benjamin Franklin

See, this is why you're a German. You just can't understand what it's like to have your human rights.
User avatar #153 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yet again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM.

Understand it, fucker. And no, I´m not german because "I don´t understand what it´s like to have my human rights" - NO, I´m german because I was born in fucking Germany you fucking inbred retard. Because that´s how you become a member of a fucking country.
User avatar #155 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
No, I'm sorry, let me rephrase: you don't understand freedom because you're German. You live in a moderately socialist authoritarian shitpile, living the illusion of an enlightened life. You've never had the liberties afforded to someone living in a more libertarian state (America is far from libertarian today, but the unamended constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed were the most libertarian legislature of their time), so you cannot understand the feeling of knowing you have those liberties. There is a cognitive bias which you are suffering from right this moment called the Curse of Knowledge--it's a legitimate metacognitive disorder caused when a person is unable to understand the position of another because they feel more intelligent. You feel enlightened on your pedestal of gun control and are unable to perceive the liberation we savages feel by exercising our rights as human beings.
User avatar #156 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
You...you really do believe that, do you? You really think that every right is a good one? Man, I hope you never get into any position of power.
User avatar #161 - misterbatman (12/02/2014) [-]
Yes, every right is a good one. Human beings should be allowed to do anything they want so long as it doesn't harm another human being or infringe upon their rights. Simply owning or carrying a gun does no harm. Firing at another human being without justification is fundamentally wrong, but my right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
#39 - >greentexting on funnyjunk >being a noguns faggot …  [+] (28 new replies) 11/30/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +3
User avatar #41 - ljxjlos (11/30/2014) [-]
Also:
>worst superhero

You´re literally the worst person
User avatar #130 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
No, batman is better than superman. Not by much, but the difference is there
User avatar #136 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
nah, man. nah
#44 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
User avatar #46 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Cpt America >>> Batman

OUTDATED. FUCKING. OUTDATED.

Seriously, it´s not that hard to get. Back then, there weren´t even 6-shot-revolvers. There was no possibility of dangerous shoot-outs, schoolshootings, niggers robbing stores, white guys going crazy, etc, etc - but there was a danger of wild animals, the british empire, etc, etc - this changed. And the rules need to change, too, because they are retarded.

Also, on your other comment:
Yuropoor, jealous of your freedoms.
You DO realize that the "freedom" to carry a gun is equal to the freedom of never being able to feel safe, do you?
User avatar #50 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
You claim our document is outdated, and I'll agree. There are parts of it that need to be rewritten or removed entirely. The Bill of Rights, however, is the greatest summary of human rights ever instituted. Our government has, over the past few decades, become more and more tyrannical. Dangerous wildlife still exists. Hunting is still a means of feeding my family. Niggers gonna nig. It doesn't matter whether I'm firing a flintlock or a m1911--my right to bear arms in defense of my own life is sacred. My freedom to do so does not take the back seat to your ineptitude and your fear, because if you're that big of a pussy you can get the fuck out of the country. I for one feel significantly safer knowing there are other mature, armed adults nearby.

Here's the main point: my rights mean more than your feelings, every time.
User avatar #143 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Also: Freedom itself is pretty much a myth. In a society like ours, with as many people on the earth as we have, it´s pretty much impossibkle to "be free". Back in the past, with 1/1000 as many people....maybe, freedom was a thing back then, when people did not have to interact with each other at such a big scale. But the more people have to interact, the more rules we have and the more rules we have, the less freedom. It´s not nice, but that´s how it is. That´s, by the way, pretty much the reason why many people deem their governments "tyrannical", too - the more people, the more international contact and interaction, the more rules. And as our world grows more intervined and multinational, the more rules are needed to keep it working - that´s how overly law-restricted societies come into existance.
User avatar #154 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
This is actually pretty much spot on, I can't argue with your thesis here. Regardless, there are human rights that are inalienable, and they are inalienable as long as there are people who believe in them fervently enough that they are willing to fight for them. If I am willing to bear arms (and die) in defense of my right to bear arms, then that right has not been taken from me, and I never lose it. As Epicurus so famously put: "Death means nothing to me, for when I am, Death has not yet come; and when Death comes, I am no longer." When I'm dead, I lose all my rights as a human anyway, so it doesn't matter that I died defending my rights.
User avatar #142 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
If you really think that your guns are for protecting yourself against the government, you´re lying to yourself. There are two possibilities in case the government actually turns tyrannical:
a) the military isn´t on their side: In this case, the government will fail, nothing will happen and you´ll life savely even without your weapons - no to mention that no government would turn tyrannical without the support of the military.
b) the military IS on the side of the government and those who oppose are slaughtered while trying to fight against Battle-Helicopters, highly trained operatives, airplane-carriers, fighting jets, etc, etc with handguns.
In the atomic age, "safety from the government" is a myth. If you think your government is tyrannical or bad, become a politician. That´s how you change things. Or well, that how you may try to change things.

"I for one feel significantly safer knowing there are other mature, armed adults nearby." - Well, have fun with that, I´ll just stay here and feel safe because there are no mass shootings, gun-wielding niggers as opposed to black men or armed incesteous Rednecks around here and because our police are actually mentally trained on being stable enough to not shoot people.
#149 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Nice black/white fallacy, buddy. As a matter of fact, there is a third alternative that's more likely to happen in the event of a full-scale revolt: the people will amass weaponry and fortify their homes and towns, using their knowledge of the terrain to engage in guerrilla warfare; there would be significant loss of life on the ground by both civilians and the military before the government determined that air superiority was necessary. After the first few towns are carpetbombed, the individual members of the military will realize that they are slaughtering their own brothers and sisters, and many of them will lay down their arms. Americans are fine when we're slaughtering sand-niggers or killing viet cong, but we're not partial to firing hellfire missiles into downtown Atlanta or blowing up buildings in New York--as a matter of fact, we have a very long history of not being partial to terrorist attacks on the home front. You could even say we built our reputation on that.

You're a weak, frail kraut bastard, and at the end of the day you'll see that your dependence on your government and your faith in your "mentally trained" SS police force is misplaced.

Pic fucking related.
User avatar #40 - ljxjlos (11/30/2014) [-]
>implying that greentexting isn´t a thing nearly everywhere
>needing guns to feel safe and manly
I dunno, why don´t you tell me?
User avatar #42 - misterbatman (11/30/2014) [-]
>this text is not green and you are a moron
>not recognizing that guns are necessary in order to defend oneself from comparably armed enemies both foreign and domestic
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you liberal faggots not understand?
User avatar #43 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
It doesn´t need to be green, you do realize that, do you?
What part of "the second amendement is outdated and need to reworkes and other countries, like my home-country Germany for example are working perfectly fine without hordes of gunwielding faggots endangering everything that breathes" do you not understand?
also:
>2014
>not being liberal
User avatar #131 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
The federalist papers elaborated completely on the intentions of the bill of rights. The second amendment give the right to citizens to possess any form of weapon and cannot be restricted from owning what is currently in use by the US military. Any sort of restriction is unconstitutional in the US
#150 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Goddamn right.
User avatar #45 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
With rioting negroids in the streets, the least of our worries are the responsibly armed civilians in America. Also, the Second Amendment exists to protect us from our government in the possibility that it becomes too tyrannical. If you disarm the population, the only two groups who have guns are criminals and the government. Neither of those groups are looking out for the welfare of the populace. You're just another yuropoor who's jealous of muh freedoms.
also:
>being liberal
>ever
User avatar #68 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
I honestly wouldn't bother, he's an idiot that's had his spiel before and he'll never understand.
User avatar #137 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
"and he´ll never understand" - well, of cause I won´t understand a wrong opinion. And wrong it is. If you need a gun to feel free, I can only pity you.
User avatar #145 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
>wrong opinion

That's something folks.
User avatar #146 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
>implying wrong opinions don´t exist.

"All jews should die"
"All blacks should die"
"All whites should die"

Seriously, just because everyone has different opinions doesn´t mean that there aren´t any that are fundamentaly wrong.
User avatar #147 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
Oxford dictionary defines an opinion as:

"A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge..."

That being said, while you can argue a philosophy of wrong/right opinions, based on the English language, it is inappropriate phrase and basically an oxymoron.

If theoretically, I hold the idea that all blacks should die. That is my opinion. Whether or not that opinion is based on logic, knowledge, or fact. It is not a wrong opinion, because it is an opinion. You can argue the fundamental morality behind the statement, but the opinion itself is not right or wrong.

That being said, the ownership of guns is culturally an entirely different issue from where you live. Your opinion, although not right or wrong, means nothing to us. Especially when you argue purely from opinion, not facts through statistics or logical reasoning.

If you want to come live over here and deal with the bullshit corruption in our government that is arming the cartels which in turn is arming gangs (which is where most of the gun related crime actually comes from to begin with,) then be my guest. Help us out, but don't be the guy that walks with steel pegged boot and carries a big stick but isn't willing to dish out the time to try to fix the problem. Seriously, this country alongside Russia are some of the biggest arms dealers in the world. People in this country just don't shoot other people because they decide to one day. They're either mental nut cases to begin with or they're in a gang related shooting.
User avatar #148 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, because the OD is the one and only scale to judge. And because "wrong opinions" isn´t a term that is used and understood by nearly everyone.

You want logical reasoning? Less guns = less crimes. Easy as this. You might come with "different circumstances", but the facts stay. Stricter gun laws would, after a period where only the criminals have funs, lead to less guns and less crime. It´s that easy. It would be a slow and harmful way, but slow progress is better than no progress. Even corruption would be less of a problem, because after all, with less guns available, the way that those guns go is easier to see. They can be traced and the source can be found and executed, be it criminals or be it corrupt politicians.

I don´t even deny that it would first lead to a huge push-up on crime rates, but a country as big as America has to look onto things on far sight. And on far sight, there has to be a point where we start to abolish guns and the idea that violence is a good thing, or nothing will change.

User avatar #152 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Also, nobody with a CC permit in America thinks violence is good, or they wouldn't be able to get their CC permit. Only those who a) already think violence is good and b) carry and obtain their weapons illegally commit gun crimes.
#151 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security." - Benjamin Franklin

See, this is why you're a German. You just can't understand what it's like to have your human rights.
User avatar #153 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yet again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM.

Understand it, fucker. And no, I´m not german because "I don´t understand what it´s like to have my human rights" - NO, I´m german because I was born in fucking Germany you fucking inbred retard. Because that´s how you become a member of a fucking country.
User avatar #155 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
No, I'm sorry, let me rephrase: you don't understand freedom because you're German. You live in a moderately socialist authoritarian shitpile, living the illusion of an enlightened life. You've never had the liberties afforded to someone living in a more libertarian state (America is far from libertarian today, but the unamended constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed were the most libertarian legislature of their time), so you cannot understand the feeling of knowing you have those liberties. There is a cognitive bias which you are suffering from right this moment called the Curse of Knowledge--it's a legitimate metacognitive disorder caused when a person is unable to understand the position of another because they feel more intelligent. You feel enlightened on your pedestal of gun control and are unable to perceive the liberation we savages feel by exercising our rights as human beings.
User avatar #156 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
You...you really do believe that, do you? You really think that every right is a good one? Man, I hope you never get into any position of power.
User avatar #161 - misterbatman (12/02/2014) [-]
Yes, every right is a good one. Human beings should be allowed to do anything they want so long as it doesn't harm another human being or infringe upon their rights. Simply owning or carrying a gun does no harm. Firing at another human being without justification is fundamentally wrong, but my right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
#4 - Nice one! Got any more?  [+] (2 new replies) 11/30/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +3
#5 - icangetyoumad (11/30/2014) [-]
#6 - icangetyoumad (11/30/2014) [-]
Underwater ak shooting

il stop posting at your request if you see im thumbwhoring
#26 - Your English is good. Keep learning, you'll master it someday.  [+] (1 new reply) 11/29/2014 on Star Wars Seven - A New Sith +1
User avatar #61 - edraham (11/29/2014) [-]
Thank you! And I hope so.
#107 - Listen here, you stupid ************* . There's a …  [+] (1 new reply) 11/28/2014 on don't stop practicing +4
#109 - dorfdorfdorf (11/28/2014) [-]
i learned something today
#91 - It's ******* disgusting. 11/21/2014 on Obesity 0
#89 - Being fat is not healthy, it's not normal, and it's not okay. …  [+] (3 new replies) 11/21/2014 on Obesity +2
#95 - arolexion (11/21/2014) [-]
Imagine your mom and your grandma always annoying you into eating more because you're too skinny.
User avatar #90 - nudybooty (11/21/2014) [-]
The sad part is, being fat is normal now.
User avatar #91 - misterbatman (11/21/2014) [-]
It's fucking disgusting.

Comments(9):

 

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