Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: female
Age: 115
Date Signed Up:8/27/2013
Last Login:7/25/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#330
Comment Ranking:#1219
Highest Content Rank:#22
Highest Comment Rank:#85
Content Thumbs: 137439 total,  155139 ,  17700
Comment Thumbs: 29967 total,  31602 ,  1635
Content Level Progress: 7.72% (386/5000)
Level 311 Content: Wizard → Level 312 Content: Wizard
Comment Level Progress: 11.5% (115/1000)
Level 324 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Content Views:9020240
Times Content Favorited:9667 times
Total Comments Made:4543
FJ Points:139536
Favorite Tags: Polandball (159) | reddit (14) | 4Chan (12) | russia (12) | canada (9) | Japan (9) | spy (9) | us (9) | kebab (8) | Finland (7) | germany (7) | sweden (7) | countryball (6) | eu (6) | not OC (6) | poland (6) | america (5) | Cars (5) | crashes (5) | Olympics (5)
I lied about being an ancient woman. Also I post polandball.

latest user's comments

#109 - Comment deleted 06/18/2016 on GreenTeaNeko +11
#37 - What's not to get? 06/16/2016 on My favourite scene from... +5
#50 - Picture 06/16/2016 on Video Game's +8
#16 - You make a compelling argument sir. 06/15/2016 on J.J. +19
#26 - I agree with this guy though. Citizens can have thei…  [+] (26 new replies) 06/15/2016 on Hillary Gun Logic 101 -23
User avatar
#114 - TheBobby (06/15/2016) [-]
Automatic weapons are highly regulated and extremely expensive in the united states
User avatar
#49 - CaptainKill (06/15/2016) [-]
Oh look, another person with no knowledge of guns or gun laws against assault rifles.

The tl;dr of the situation is this: assault rifles are highly regulated in the USA, are expensive as fuck ($20,000+) and require a clearance by the ATF, FBI, and your local police chief. What most people call "assault rifles" are civilian sporting rifles which look cosmetically like a military grade rifle, but can only function semi-automatically, just like the hunting rifles that have been around for well over a century.
#32 - anon (06/15/2016) [-]
You know, there is something that kills many times more people than civiilian-owned full auto guns. And have just as little use. We should really ban them.

Sports cars.

you fucking twat
#131 - wootsauce (06/15/2016) [-]
Black people??

User avatar
#31 - lucariopwnz (06/15/2016) [-]
Do you understand what an "assault rifle" actually is? Like fuck, everyone bitching about them but have no idea what they're complaining about... an assault rifle is classified as a long gun that has a select fire capability. This means it can fire semi auto (one trigger pull, one round fired) or it can fire automatic (hold the trigger and endless bullets). THESE ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO JUST ANYONE!!! They require a special license and cost ridiculous amounts of money. So you're "opinion" is already in effect...
#30 - anon (06/15/2016) [-]
Good things it's not called the Bill of Needs.
User avatar
#29 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]



User avatar
#133 - mvtjets (06/15/2016) [-]
Yeah let's have people keep LMG's too
And miniguns
With explosive rounds

User avatar
#134 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
i agree with that statement, whether you are being sarcastic or not.
User avatar
#147 - skrasnic (06/15/2016) [-]
Let's take the stupid train one stop further.

Fuck it, why can't I buy a rocket launcher? It would just be for self defence.

Shalnotbeinfrged amirite guis.

Why is my right to own a ICBM being infringed?

Why can't I start my own private militia to defend myself? It's just self defence of course.

Fact is, we have to draw the line somewhere. Shall Not Be Infringed just can't cut it anymore. We can't trust people with too much power.
User avatar
#178 - mvtjets (06/16/2016) [-]
It's a shame everything HAS to be a right wing besides gay rights opinion or it gets thumb bombarded
#151 - anon (06/15/2016) [-]
Or, or


Maybe we don't have to draw a line on firearm type, but around legal distribution?

Terrorists used planes to kill millions. We never stopped and said, "Maybe we shouldn't allow certain types of planes to be flown because that's what will prevent future terrorist attacks." We stepped the fuck up and tightened our goddamn security. There are a billion reasons why owning firearms more powerful than a goddamn pistol is important, just because you don't think that citizens will need to defend themselves from more than one homicidal maniac or will need to have power to overrule governmental tyranny one day is a plausible cause for ownership doesn't mean it nullifies the need to defend oneself as efficiently as active military. "Shall not be infringed" is the reason there have been NO wars on U.S. soil since the goddamn Civil War.
User avatar
#160 - skrasnic (06/15/2016) [-]
And gun control laws have been the reason there hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996.
Meanwhile in America there have been 5 mass shooting since Orlando, resulting in 4 dead and 24 injured. www.massshootingtracker.org/data

It's not solid evidence, I know. It's only one case.

I just think risk/reward needs to be balanced. I think it is too risky having automatic weapons in general population.
It's like the cold war. If everyone has a gun then nobody's going to shoot. But it isn't true peace. Everyone is ready to shoot the moment someone else does. It has a massive risk.
There's also the issue, that once a gun has been sold, there is no control over what happens to it. Mr Smith, a gardener, could easily sell his fire arm to Mr Jones, a drug dealer.
Similarly, a drunk/high person can't drive a car. We have police testing this. But a drunk person can easily carry a concealed firearm, without police noticing.

While there are billions of uses for fire arms stronger than pistols there are also billions of risks.
User avatar
#162 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
You say that, but you also have to think about how there's no record of any of those fifty or so victims or any victims in any shooting aside from law enforcement being armed for self defense. Not that there would be, media won't cover that kind of issue. So in a way, you're right, there is an imbalance. As a country who supports firearms, there may just need to be more people carrying. Unfortunately, forcing people to buy guns may in a way also infringe on the idea of it being a right. But nonetheless, it simply goes to show our vulnerability as a country. I would rather be more prepared to defend against a potential threat than cross my fingers on the promise that I would be protected by someone else that I can't rely on. We've had a lot of mass shootings in America recently but that doesn't make me forget how recent Paris was, either.
#152 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
I agree with this man right here.

Mainly because that's me who forgot to log in.
#154 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
i agree with this man right here.

Mainly because he is sexy and right
#158 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
I agree with this individual for agreeing with me and for being sexy.
#159 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
aww, you
#149 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
sorry dont agree with that, but im not going to be a fucking retard and thumb down and be an asshole to those that disagree with me.

have nice day
#46 - anon (06/15/2016) [-]
Where does it say the right to bare assault rifles shall not be infringed.

If you claim that it includes all arms, then by that logic fully automatic light machine guns should also be legal. But they aren't, because people realized how ridiculous it is to trust that not even one out of tens of millions of gun owners will never simply hold down the trigger and kill dozens.
User avatar
#130 - wootsauce (06/15/2016) [-]
They SHOULD be.
User avatar
#95 - unladenswallow (06/15/2016) [-]
Fully automatic weapons are legal you brainless failure. You just have to go through a fuck ton of hoops to get them. They aren't "banned" though. Anybody can buy and fly a plane, but you need to go through training and such first. This doesn't mean that planes are banned, just not easy to access.
#47 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
good b8 anon
User avatar
#40 - scorcho (06/15/2016) [-]
do you defend freedom of religion with the same vigor?
User avatar
#41 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
I believe people should be able to peacefully do whatever they want, religion, assembly, talking, whatever, as long as it is done within reason, and does not effect others negatively. Im pro freedom, dont know what you are trying to get at here m80.
#75 - anon (06/15/2016) [-]
as long as it is done within reason
#25 - Comment deleted 06/15/2016 on Hillary Gun Logic 101 0
#45 - >Leomon Ah, I remember the porn I ran into, thanks… 06/15/2016 on Digimon vs Tamagotchi 0
#103 - Picture 06/15/2016 on Scale +5
#87 - I thought that roll was god damn hilarious. 06/13/2016 on The elder scrolls VI...... +2
#11814488 - Picture 06/12/2016 on Old Board. Go to... 0