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

hide menu

silvet    

Rank #22336 on Subscribers
silvet Avatar Level 202 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to silvet Block silvet Invite silvet to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:2/14/2011
Last Login:10/31/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 3429 total,  3873 ,  444
Comment Thumbs: 1023 total,  1593 ,  570
Content Level Progress: 29% (29/100)
Level 134 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 135 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 202 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 203 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:3
Content Views:140716
Times Content Favorited:118 times
Total Comments Made:1234
FJ Points:4467
Favorite Tags: fuck (2) | Mario (2) | tumblr (2)

latest user's comments

#503 - Define what you mean by crazy? Like do you have the urge to go…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#505 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
**pseudobob rolled a random image posted in comment #2786410 at MLP Friendly Board ** I'll let funnyjunk answer for me.
User avatar #506 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
Yes. I do.
#508 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Here, watch this emo kid get hurt for an hour. it'll help.
#511 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
That looks really fake.
#551 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
k then watch this
#501 - "The bill, which was signed into law by President Bill Cl… 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#498 - would you consider yourself a psychopath?  [+] (7 new replies) 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#502 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
Hey, the first rule is you can't think you're crazy.
User avatar #503 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Define what you mean by crazy? Like do you have the urge to go and kill a LOT of people.
#505 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
**pseudobob rolled a random image posted in comment #2786410 at MLP Friendly Board ** I'll let funnyjunk answer for me.
User avatar #506 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
Yes. I do.
#508 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Here, watch this emo kid get hurt for an hour. it'll help.
#511 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
That looks really fake.
#551 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
k then watch this
#495 - Would you actually hunt with a weapon that has a capacity of 3… 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#488 - Assault weapon meaning a rifle like an AR-15 or AK-47. Or some…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#526 - Womens Study Major (01/18/2013) [-]
All guns are designed to kill.
User avatar #545 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
This is true but there will never be a bill passed in this country saying that no weapons can be had.
#525 - IGiveUp (01/18/2013) [-]
An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle that just happens to look like a military grade weapon. An M-4 is an assault rifle. It has a select fire switch for burst fire which fires 3 round bursts every time you pull the trigger. There are many more much powerful semi-auto rifles. AR-15s just look like military grade weapons, thus most people automatically label them as assault weapons.
User avatar #548 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
I used that gun as an example. But even if that gun can only use a semi-auto fire, it's still more dangerous than a handgun. It's more accurate, it has a higher capacity magazine, and it has a larger round. those are what differentiate an AR-15 from a simple bolt action rifle.
User avatar #510 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
So then any sort of gun can be an assault weapon? If someone breaks into my house to kill me then yes, I want to assault him.

You cannot own AKs (post 1979), and .50 cal rifles are rarely legal or even used. Any weapon that operates with burst or automatic fire are already banned.

The AR-15 is functionally no different from any semiautomatic rifle, hunting or otherwise. All fire exactly one bullet per trigger pull. The AR-15 merely LOOKS like it's military relative.

But besides, these weapons are not being used to murder people. More people are murdered with hammers and clubs, than with ANY kind of rifle. A
pushbacknow.net/2013/01/14/fbi-annual-stats-number-of-murders-annually-with-hammers-far-outnumbers-murders-with-rifles/comment-page-1/
Most violent gun crime is committed with handguns.


Also, note that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not lapse in 1994, it expired in 2004. Columbine AND the Virginia Tech shooting happened during this ban. It didn't solve anything.
#754 - Womens Study Major (01/19/2013) [-]
You link to pbn, right wing properganda. Could you please find a more central, less biased link next time. Anyway, Its not rifles vs hammers. That link is actually rifles vs all blunt objects. Which just happens to include hammers, along side golf clubs, wood, chairs etc etc..
Its a silly comparison ofcourse. If it were just hammers it would be a lot less than rifles.
If you could ban blunt objects that would be great, ofcourse the idea is stupid.
A more comparable stat would be blunt force objects as a whole vs guns as a whole, which ofcourse is very lopsided towards guns (~600 vs ~10500 i beleive.)

Rifles are low hanging fruit. An easy step that might get accepted by a nation in love with guns.
User avatar #520 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
The ban was placed in 1994. That's where I got my facts mixed up (sorry I'm juggling a lot of replies.) And I'm in Rhode Island, I can actually walk down to a gunstore in Warwick, and purchase both an AK (or a knockoff) and a Barret, and in a week I can be a legal registered owner.

Now while it is true that people can ILLEGALLY obtain these weapons, this is a fact of life, but lets be honest, if I wanted to get a military helicopter I could with enough money and connections. (Side note, VT happened in 2007).

And it's not just simply murder as a whole, its the more detailed situation of MASS murder. VT, Aurora, and now Sandyhook along with others have all happened when the lapse was lifted. The people representing the NRA now is not the gun OWNERS, it's the gun MANUFACTURERS.

I'm not saying it'll completely stop the mass murder problem, but it certainly would help in cutting the events.
User avatar #557 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
Opps, now it's my turn to correct myself. You're right about VT. The shooter still used the 10 round mags though. All of these shooting (except Aurora), including Fort Hood, were done in gun free zones. The attacks were well planned and almost exclusively done by the mentally ill. Why take things away from the millions of people who own and maintain these guns safely?
#478 - Here's what I don't understand. The ban that is going to be pl…  [+] (44 new replies) 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#512 - rexthedino (01/18/2013) [-]
No one on this site has an "assault weapon" since they were banned by Reagan in 1986. Stop listening to the media. No matter what they tell you a civilian ak-47 or ar-15 is not a assault rifle.

To explain this better an Assault rifle is a military rifle capable of fully-automatic fire or select fire capabilities( switching from burst to automatic etc).

Also the Assault weapons ban had been shown to not lower crime at all from 1994-2004.

Only 3% of gun deaths are caused by so called "Assault weapons".

Most gun deaths are attributed to unlicensed handguns that take place in inner-cities as a result of gang violence or other criminal activity.

I own a Ak-47 because I can, I want to be able to protect myself and my family from any threats, Why would I be limited to 10 rounds when criminals aren't?

And last it is not the bill of needs it is the bill of rights. The second amendment does not give you the right to own a gun. It was meant to protect you from the government taking away that right.
#550 - Womens Study Major (01/18/2013) [-]
cuz you really need an AK to defend your home against 'criminals' that ransack homes like it's somalia. best case scenario you shoot a possum at 3AM and fortunately dont hurt yourself or your family
User avatar #555 - rexthedino (01/18/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE

No because I had someone try to break into my door and the fact that I had an "Assault rifle" made me feel a lot better about if he did break in rather than getting scared off by the neighbors dog.
User avatar #519 - rexthedino (01/18/2013) [-]
By the way that is my Ak-47 I forgot to mention. It has a pistol grip high capacity magazines and a collapsible stock; yet it hasn't jumped up on its own and killed anybody.

Weird right? It must be defective.
#752 - Womens Study Major (01/19/2013) [-]
You cannot guarantee this machine will not be used for murder. You may lock it up well so it wont get stolen but you cannot guarantee it wont get stolen during its time with the next owner or the one after etc etc. Or even that you or following owners will remain mentally stable, we are all human after all. I guess most ordinary people throughout the world would be happier if that machine never existed, was never purchased so it could fund another gun made by the factory where it came from. I love machines, and thats an impressive machine. But at what possible cost.
User avatar #543 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
The AK-47 was designed for the purpose of military use correct? It was not made so that civilians could own them. I do realize that the gun is semi-automatic, but this isn't an issue of gun DEATHS. There is no way to fully prevent gun violence. The issue being addressed currently is the issue of MASS murder. The action of going into a crowded place and killing near everyone in there. Most of these cases have been committed by legally obtained firearms, and by that I mean what you consider to be my definition of an assault weapon. The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is really stupid if I'm being honest. It's dependent on who the gun is in the hands of, and right now, we aren't sure if the person getting the gun is crazy or not. You can't just go out on the street and pick out a mass murderer, if you could you should be in the secret service. And also, the Second amendment was not made to protect us from the government. I'm going to quote a friend of mine here explaining it "The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." clearly the founders viewed the right to bear arms as a right assosciated with the state militias. The state militias eventually became the National Guard divisions of each state, meaning that the national guard has a constitutionally guarunteed right to bear arms. The world was also a very different place back then, where danger lurked in most of America." and when he says danger he means things like bears and unpredictable wildlife. But there is a big difference between 1800 weaponry and the weapons we have today. I personally just don't think it's a necessity.
User avatar #575 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
The right of the people shall not be infringed. If the intent was to give the right to the states, the amendment would have said so.

Besides, if the people still ran the militias and privately owned the weapons used by the militias that would be one thing. But the national guards are run by the state, and serve the states' and federal governments interests.
User avatar #585 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
But that's what I'm saying! Back then the local milita and the citizens were the same thing, and they did keep the weapons in their own homes back in the days of 1886. The reason the local militia grew into the national guard was to train them specifically for the purpose of the people's protection, and that involved a more powerful form of weaponry. The national guard was not existent back then but it is now, to serve as protection for the states, with military grade power. The people can choose to join the national guard have that opportunity to use those guns, but some people don't want to be part of that. My view is that if you don't want to put the effort into being efficiently trained, you shouldn't have the tool.
User avatar #636 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
The national guard is not the same thing as the people owning firearms. They serve the government, something the militias were designed to protect against. The endgame here is that private citizens must own the weapons because they (collectively) will follow the people's best interest. The government, by its nature, will not and needs to be forced to.
User avatar #716 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
But people who are untrained, and also have volatile tendencies, are not safe with weaponry. Just because someone understands the concept of shooting a gun, does not make them qualified to wield one. Also the people do not collectively fight for one interest, people who are armed with guns will feel that they have the power to impose their own personal interests on others. And weather the tactic be fear or disillusion of power, they will gain followers. Frankly they problem with this country right now is that we as a collective mass aren't trying to find ways to better the country, and frankly the only way to do that is through a compromise. That is what this entire bill is about. A compromise. They are not taking away ALL firearms, they are just taking away the ones that have proven to be most dangerous to the general masses.
User avatar #553 - rexthedino (01/18/2013) [-]
Actually that whole danger lurked everywhere is false. There is more crime now then there was back then. Go figure. Albeit there was more wildlife and Indians lol.

Funny I own a semi-automatic AK-47 made in the same factory as the military fully automatic ak-47's. If it wasn't meant for civilians it would not have been designed that way.

Last I am glad you brought up the Constitution. Our founding fathers just finished a war with a tyrannical government that tried to take away their guns and freedom. We put that amendment in so no one could ever take away our guns and yet here we are.

Also before the well you can own a musket argument, At the time flintlock rifles were state of the art weaponry and the civilians had the same firepower as the military and it was meant to stay that way. How are you going to fight of a government(which was the intended last resort purpose of the 2nd amendment) if you have less firepower than them?
User avatar #576 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
The idea of a military back then was a local militia. Implying that things were "meant to stay that way" is basically saying we should hand out fully automatic weapons to the neighbor hood watch. The US Army during the Revolutionary War was not an organized faction, like how it is now. You are not a soldier, you are not fighting for anything. And another point, the government nowadays COULDN'T be a tyranny, there are too many representatives from different points of view that disagree of almost everything, that we barely get anything done. And also, they didn't try to take away their guns, what the British Regime tried to do was feed off the colonies income, resources, and land in the name of British Monarchy. The US people revolted because of the unfair prices of imported goods, and also the fact that they didn't feel it was fair that a ruler halfway around the world was in control of their own country. That's why people fought. For that freedom to rule their own place. But again, the military was the civilians back then. They were simply militia. It was not a profession, it was something else entirely. Now you can make being a soldier your profession. Times have changed, as should the rules and regulations of our laws. The bill of rights needs to be subjective to this day and age. Also you can STILL purchase a gun under this ban, you can still protect yourself.
User avatar #494 - DerpScout (01/18/2013) [-]
Isn't the idea behind Americans being able to own "Assault weapons" being that if the government was to become tyrannical the people in it would be able to defend themselves against it?
#530 - batwill (01/18/2013) [-]
Well if that's the case, I want to buy a tank and a quadricopter drone.
User avatar #501 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
"The bill, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, prohibited 19 types of military-style assault weapons. The ban expired because Congress did not reauthorize it as prescribed in the original legislation." -www.dukechronicle.com/article/assault-weapon-ban-lifted
#493 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
I don't own any guns, but I do play video games. However. My psychopathy is unrelated.
User avatar #498 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
would you consider yourself a psychopath?
#502 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
Hey, the first rule is you can't think you're crazy.
User avatar #503 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Define what you mean by crazy? Like do you have the urge to go and kill a LOT of people.
#505 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
**pseudobob rolled a random image posted in comment #2786410 at MLP Friendly Board ** I'll let funnyjunk answer for me.
User avatar #506 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
Yes. I do.
#508 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Here, watch this emo kid get hurt for an hour. it'll help.
#511 - pseudobob (01/18/2013) [-]
That looks really fake.
#551 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
k then watch this
User avatar #479 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
Define "assault weapon".
User avatar #488 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Assault weapon meaning a rifle like an AR-15 or AK-47. Or some sniping rifle like a Barret .50 cal. Basically a weapon made to kill. It's not easy to kill someone with a .22 handgun, given it's easier than something like lets say a sharpened stick, but a .22 is designed for hunting (I guess), or competitive target shooting so it's seen as a sporting gun. I know that's still a bit vague, but think like.. military grade weaponry.
#526 - Womens Study Major (01/18/2013) [-]
All guns are designed to kill.
User avatar #545 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
This is true but there will never be a bill passed in this country saying that no weapons can be had.
#525 - IGiveUp (01/18/2013) [-]
An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle that just happens to look like a military grade weapon. An M-4 is an assault rifle. It has a select fire switch for burst fire which fires 3 round bursts every time you pull the trigger. There are many more much powerful semi-auto rifles. AR-15s just look like military grade weapons, thus most people automatically label them as assault weapons.
User avatar #548 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
I used that gun as an example. But even if that gun can only use a semi-auto fire, it's still more dangerous than a handgun. It's more accurate, it has a higher capacity magazine, and it has a larger round. those are what differentiate an AR-15 from a simple bolt action rifle.
User avatar #510 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
So then any sort of gun can be an assault weapon? If someone breaks into my house to kill me then yes, I want to assault him.

You cannot own AKs (post 1979), and .50 cal rifles are rarely legal or even used. Any weapon that operates with burst or automatic fire are already banned.

The AR-15 is functionally no different from any semiautomatic rifle, hunting or otherwise. All fire exactly one bullet per trigger pull. The AR-15 merely LOOKS like it's military relative.

But besides, these weapons are not being used to murder people. More people are murdered with hammers and clubs, than with ANY kind of rifle. A
pushbacknow.net/2013/01/14/fbi-annual-stats-number-of-murders-annually-with-hammers-far-outnumbers-murders-with-rifles/comment-page-1/
Most violent gun crime is committed with handguns.


Also, note that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not lapse in 1994, it expired in 2004. Columbine AND the Virginia Tech shooting happened during this ban. It didn't solve anything.
#754 - Womens Study Major (01/19/2013) [-]
You link to pbn, right wing properganda. Could you please find a more central, less biased link next time. Anyway, Its not rifles vs hammers. That link is actually rifles vs all blunt objects. Which just happens to include hammers, along side golf clubs, wood, chairs etc etc..
Its a silly comparison ofcourse. If it were just hammers it would be a lot less than rifles.
If you could ban blunt objects that would be great, ofcourse the idea is stupid.
A more comparable stat would be blunt force objects as a whole vs guns as a whole, which ofcourse is very lopsided towards guns (~600 vs ~10500 i beleive.)

Rifles are low hanging fruit. An easy step that might get accepted by a nation in love with guns.
User avatar #520 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
The ban was placed in 1994. That's where I got my facts mixed up (sorry I'm juggling a lot of replies.) And I'm in Rhode Island, I can actually walk down to a gunstore in Warwick, and purchase both an AK (or a knockoff) and a Barret, and in a week I can be a legal registered owner.

Now while it is true that people can ILLEGALLY obtain these weapons, this is a fact of life, but lets be honest, if I wanted to get a military helicopter I could with enough money and connections. (Side note, VT happened in 2007).

And it's not just simply murder as a whole, its the more detailed situation of MASS murder. VT, Aurora, and now Sandyhook along with others have all happened when the lapse was lifted. The people representing the NRA now is not the gun OWNERS, it's the gun MANUFACTURERS.

I'm not saying it'll completely stop the mass murder problem, but it certainly would help in cutting the events.
User avatar #557 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
Opps, now it's my turn to correct myself. You're right about VT. The shooter still used the 10 round mags though. All of these shooting (except Aurora), including Fort Hood, were done in gun free zones. The attacks were well planned and almost exclusively done by the mentally ill. Why take things away from the millions of people who own and maintain these guns safely?
User avatar #486 - Xix (01/18/2013) [-]
My definition of assault weapon would be any weapon that can have a magazine size of 30 or more.
User avatar #495 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Would you actually hunt with a weapon that has a capacity of 30 or more rounds? MAny hunting groups have actually come out and said that they don't typically use that grade of weaponry for hunting. Usually its a simple shotgun, hunting rifle (like a Remington 789), or even a compound bow.
User avatar #489 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
But that has nothing to do with the weapon itself. And why 30? Is there specific reason or is it just an arbitrary number?
User avatar #497 - Xix (01/18/2013) [-]
Arbitrary really. Do i honestly need 30 rounds of a 5.56 round? or 7.62? A hand gun used for self protection has what 8 to 16 rounds? So its not really just the magazine or clip size as more of a matter as to how much of a caliper round you can have at any given time.
User avatar #514 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
What if I want 30 rounds? "High capacity" magazines were banned until 2004 under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. When Columbine and the Virginia Tech shooting happened, the shooters merely carried more magazines. It really doesn't make a difference.
User avatar #521 - Xix (01/18/2013) [-]
Honestly there will never be anything to stop someone if you really want it you will get it. Yes you could just carry more magazines with you, but... and i hate to say this, but i would much rather have the few moments of reload time to make a move either towards the person or towards the door. I'm just stating that there is absolutely no need for a citizen to have 30 rounds going down range.
User avatar #579 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
If someone else had a gun, we wouldn't need to really on the shooter having to reload his weapon.
User avatar #584 - Xix (01/18/2013) [-]
And what if this good samaritan with a gun missed the gunman and shoots me?
User avatar #616 - durkadurka (01/18/2013) [-]
So you'll be standing behind the gunman?

Personally I don't think I could refuse to take a hit if it meant the gunman was stopped and lives were saved.
User avatar #507 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
I suppose you could say that. I mean we do sell Desert Eagles, which still utilizes that .50 round. I don't know if that would be considered an assault weapon, but it sure is dangerous. It's grey areas like that that will cause some confusion, but all in all I can see the DE staying completely legal, based on the size of the clip.
#5 - Nah dude LoL all the way. 01/18/2013 on LoL with BLOPS2 sounds +1
#14 - Comment deleted 01/17/2013 on Amidoinitrite? 0
#23 - giv meh keels or i rehport u. morde es numbah whan huehuehuehue 01/17/2013 on Welcome to the League of... +3
#16 - Comment deleted 01/17/2013 on DAT ASS *_* 0
#3 - cool idea.. too bad the league music is still better. dude do…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/17/2013 on LoL with BLOPS2 sounds +1
User avatar #4 - kanek (01/17/2013) [-]
Should i do make using LoL as the host game? Or should I do for example zelda sounds for another game?
User avatar #5 - silvet (01/18/2013) [-]
Nah dude LoL all the way.
#5 - one of THOSE weeks eh? 01/17/2013 on Are you fucking kidding me 0
#37 - It's clear what we need to do... BURN ARKANSAS 01/08/2013 on Wow 0
#666 - LeBlanc form LoL... I'm fiiiiiiiine 01/08/2013 on Umbra 0
#4 - GENIUS 01/04/2013 on 5 Top, keep it classy 0
#21 - woops forgot to log in 01/04/2013 on League Life +1
#20 - Oh I know bro. I've played terrible games at like level 12 and… 12/27/2012 on 5x AP 0
#18 - da **** 12/25/2012 on 5x AP 0
#27 - I'm kind of more paying attention to the comment... Is she lik…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/19/2012 on That's an accomplishment... +11
User avatar #36 - jpmonkey (12/19/2012) [-]
no its lyrics from a song called stay awake. it is saying that with what we are doing to the world people are going to be dying (ie war, famine, that stuff) and if everyone doesnt end up dying because of all the corruption in the world we will be a very messed up generation because of our history. i recommend listening to the song! its very good
User avatar #46 - puredeliciousness (12/19/2012) [-]
Stay awake by lydia or whatever?
#31 - Womens Study Major (12/19/2012) [-]
She meant as in trying as hard as possible to succeed i not literally killing ourselves :/
User avatar #28 - davidokuro (12/19/2012) [-]
I interpreted it as she's talking about our environment. She's saying "If we manage to survive what we're doing, we'll be fucked by what we have done."
#11 - Binders full of damage 12/18/2012 on Seems Legit. 0
#8 - Bro I'm only level 21 and I just play for fun. I LOVE the gam…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/17/2012 on 5x AP 0
User avatar #19 - bloodshotpillow (12/27/2012) [-]
Wait til you hit level 30. I regret ever trying to get to it. It's just all pussies that whine about EVERYTHING you do.
User avatar #20 - silvet (12/27/2012) [-]
Oh I know bro. I've played terrible games at like level 12 and had no one complain, but when I played on my GFs level 30 acct, I got one death and someone GG'd.

btw my SN is Silveus
User avatar #17 - anxious (12/25/2012) [-]
i want you

User avatar #18 - silvet (12/25/2012) [-]
da fuck
#656 - Well good sir I havent something to say to that... Ba…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/11/2012 on Canadian Bagged Milk +13
User avatar #800 - rbpwn (12/11/2012) [-]
Bagged milk is older than jugs
#691 - yusay (12/11/2012) [-]
Saves space in landfills.
#1821080 - Mine is LunarSong when you find it 11/20/2012 on autism autism autism autism 0
#1821045 - yissss  [+] (1 new reply) 11/20/2012 on autism autism autism autism 0
User avatar #1821236 - mrpyramidturtle (11/20/2012) [-]
Whoops, almost forgot. My ID is MrPyramidTurtle, I forgot my old one.
#1821025 - what's your GL Live name?  [+] (4 new replies) 11/20/2012 on autism autism autism autism 0
User avatar #1821033 - mrpyramidturtle (11/20/2012) [-]
Let me charge my phone so I can check.
User avatar #1821080 - silvet (11/20/2012) [-]
Mine is LunarSong when you find it
User avatar #1821045 - silvet (11/20/2012) [-]
yissss
User avatar #1821236 - mrpyramidturtle (11/20/2012) [-]
Whoops, almost forgot. My ID is MrPyramidTurtle, I forgot my old one.

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#9 - miia ONLINE (04/17/2014) [-]
#10 to #9 - silvet (04/29/2014) [-]
you.. ok?
you.. ok?
#11 to #10 - miia ONLINE (04/29/2014) [-]
You were gone for a long time!
User avatar #12 to #11 - silvet (04/29/2014) [-]
Haha.. I guess so huh.. It's been a crazy year.. So I decided why not relax my mind by venturing back onto FJ. Sorry I was away ^^;
#13 to #12 - miia ONLINE (04/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #14 to #13 - silvet (04/29/2014) [-]
You run both profiles?
User avatar #15 to #14 - miia ONLINE (04/29/2014) [-]
i own them both but i dont use them anymore
#16 to #15 - silvet (04/30/2014) [-]
ooohh well anyway, whats up?
User avatar #17 to #16 - miia ONLINE (04/30/2014) [-]
im up now
#6 - Womens Study Major (01/30/2013) [-]
lololololololololol
#1 - marauder (01/31/2012) [-]
I ROLLED YOUZZ
User avatar #2 to #1 - silvet (02/01/2012) [-]
Oh god what did you roll
 Friends (0)