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

hide menu

thraza    

Rank #11931 on Comments
thraza Avatar Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Online
Send mail to thraza Block thraza Invite thraza to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/26/2010
Last Login:9/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#11931
Highest Comment Rank:#6981
Comment Thumbs: 1015 total,  1168 ,  153
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 199 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:374
FJ Points:1054

latest user's comments

#17 - only two sources say battle axe and the head cant be seen so t…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/16/2014 on The Gourmet -3
#27 - 4chan refugee (02/16/2014) [-]
I've played enough Skyrim to know ebony gauntlets when I see one.
What you have mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe is the pointy end of the gauntlet.
Here we have the Ebony Warrior.
And of course he must have the ebony gauntlets otherwise he wouldn't truly be the ebony warrior.
And we can clearly see that the gauntlets are pretty pointy towards the end and could be mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe
User avatar #44 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
yes but the head is hidden and all sources i googled said it was a battle axe so im going with that
User avatar #21 - yellowcardraiden (02/16/2014) [-]
The thing that is left of his hip is his arm.
User avatar #57 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
dam i was hoping it wasnt
#15 - if its oc then you could ask the poster what it exactly is  [+] (6 new replies) 02/16/2014 on The Gourmet -2
#16 - demigodofmadness (02/16/2014) [-]
I don't think he's op
User avatar #17 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
only two sources say battle axe and the head cant be seen so till i see otherwise im assuming that
#27 - 4chan refugee (02/16/2014) [-]
I've played enough Skyrim to know ebony gauntlets when I see one.
What you have mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe is the pointy end of the gauntlet.
Here we have the Ebony Warrior.
And of course he must have the ebony gauntlets otherwise he wouldn't truly be the ebony warrior.
And we can clearly see that the gauntlets are pretty pointy towards the end and could be mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe
User avatar #44 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
yes but the head is hidden and all sources i googled said it was a battle axe so im going with that
User avatar #21 - yellowcardraiden (02/16/2014) [-]
The thing that is left of his hip is his arm.
User avatar #57 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
dam i was hoping it wasnt
#8 - look again see that silvery part left of his hip  [+] (9 new replies) 02/16/2014 on The Gourmet -4
#53 - alstorp (02/16/2014) [-]
Yeah, that's the blade of the scythe.
User avatar #12 - demigodofmadness (02/16/2014) [-]
What you're seeing is a combination of the scythes aura and the sharp side of his gauntlet
User avatar #15 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
if its oc then you could ask the poster what it exactly is
#16 - demigodofmadness (02/16/2014) [-]
I don't think he's op
User avatar #17 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
only two sources say battle axe and the head cant be seen so till i see otherwise im assuming that
#27 - 4chan refugee (02/16/2014) [-]
I've played enough Skyrim to know ebony gauntlets when I see one.
What you have mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe is the pointy end of the gauntlet.
Here we have the Ebony Warrior.
And of course he must have the ebony gauntlets otherwise he wouldn't truly be the ebony warrior.
And we can clearly see that the gauntlets are pretty pointy towards the end and could be mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe
User avatar #44 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
yes but the head is hidden and all sources i googled said it was a battle axe so im going with that
User avatar #21 - yellowcardraiden (02/16/2014) [-]
The thing that is left of his hip is his arm.
User avatar #57 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
dam i was hoping it wasnt
#5 - on the left you can see the battle axe blade sticking out. the…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/16/2014 on The Gourmet -4
User avatar #6 - alstorp (02/16/2014) [-]
It's definitely a scythe.
User avatar #8 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
look again see that silvery part left of his hip
#53 - alstorp (02/16/2014) [-]
Yeah, that's the blade of the scythe.
User avatar #12 - demigodofmadness (02/16/2014) [-]
What you're seeing is a combination of the scythes aura and the sharp side of his gauntlet
User avatar #15 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
if its oc then you could ask the poster what it exactly is
#16 - demigodofmadness (02/16/2014) [-]
I don't think he's op
User avatar #17 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
only two sources say battle axe and the head cant be seen so till i see otherwise im assuming that
#27 - 4chan refugee (02/16/2014) [-]
I've played enough Skyrim to know ebony gauntlets when I see one.
What you have mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe is the pointy end of the gauntlet.
Here we have the Ebony Warrior.
And of course he must have the ebony gauntlets otherwise he wouldn't truly be the ebony warrior.
And we can clearly see that the gauntlets are pretty pointy towards the end and could be mistaken for the sharp side of a battleaxe
User avatar #44 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
yes but the head is hidden and all sources i googled said it was a battle axe so im going with that
User avatar #21 - yellowcardraiden (02/16/2014) [-]
The thing that is left of his hip is his arm.
User avatar #57 - thraza (02/16/2014) [-]
dam i was hoping it wasnt
#160401 - yes 02/13/2014 on PARTY ROOM 0
#6 - i was talking about fox news only. i don't know what point you… 02/03/2014 on (untitled) 0
#4 - considering that its fox news its pretty believable that they …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/03/2014 on (untitled) -3
#5 - 4chan refugee (02/03/2014) [-]
This one is real.
You were saying?
User avatar #6 - thraza (02/03/2014) [-]
i was talking about fox news only. i don't know what point you are trying to get across here.
#14 - thats for finding duplicates if there was porn in the vid its …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/06/2014 on poptart pornography -3
User avatar #15 - RandomAnonGuy (01/06/2014) [-]
Identify loop in frames -> Scan for variations in loop -> Check any variations.
Repeat for sound.
#207 - its probably airtight and sealed so its still gonna need it 12/30/2013 on goddamn it Nappa -1
#1 - i have the feeling that i missed out on some important news. s…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/29/2013 on Norwegian Fried Churches 0
User avatar #3 - pongldr (12/29/2013) [-]
I forgot the dudes name but he is from a metal band and he kinda burnt down a church for fun. So yeah, fairly cool guy. It was quite a while ago though.
User avatar #5 - areyouhammeredbro (12/29/2013) [-]
His name is Varg Vikernes (Count Grishnackh), a metal artist and enthusiast who was sentenced to 21 years in jail for the murder on Øystein Aarseth, burning down three churches and for stealing stuff. This was in the 1990s though, so i dont really see why its relevant.
User avatar #2 - gorgeousleaf (12/29/2013) [-]
if im not mistaken, twas long ago in the distant land of norway a man burnt down a church
#402 - well the other countries would probably support rebels and opp… 12/24/2013 on Title 0
#375 - peacekeepers might be sent in. and even if the UN doesn't step… 12/24/2013 on Title 0
#371 - its been a long time since Vietnam. also Vietnam had the luxur…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #380 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
And you guys would have the luxury of being at the heart of the problem. And the support of first world countries.
User avatar #402 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
well the other countries would probably support rebels and opposition for various reasons but armed conflict probably would end up bloody with very little accomplished.
#40 - worlds not that overpopulated. and threw out our history the … 12/24/2013 on neat 0
#179 - maybe at first but many people would prefer to be alive then d… 12/24/2013 on Title -1
#177 - youll be shot before you would even get the chance. and beside…  [+] (7 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #257 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
Vietnam war. Clever people with inferior technology won the battle. Granted that was on their turf, but still.
User avatar #371 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
its been a long time since Vietnam. also Vietnam had the luxury of jungles and lots of cover on top of infrastructure to build proper equipment and weapons. they were better off than this situation
User avatar #380 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
And you guys would have the luxury of being at the heart of the problem. And the support of first world countries.
User avatar #402 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
well the other countries would probably support rebels and opposition for various reasons but armed conflict probably would end up bloody with very little accomplished.
User avatar #178 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then there should be more to take my place and keep fighting
User avatar #186 - strikingeight (12/24/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you, we actually could do it. Many U.S. soldiers are oath bearers, meaning they took an oath to not shoot U.S. citizens. There goes a substantial amount of the military. So long as we don't commit any war crimes, we can gain the support of foreign countries/ Americans. The revolution also would open up the flood gates for states to secede, taking soldiers, weapons, and supplies with them that may aide us. We defeated the Brits, came close to the Union, and with leadership like Obama's, I think we could do it.
User avatar #179 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
maybe at first but many people would prefer to be alive then dying for a cause that would likely end with nothing accomplished. if you want to stop such a government you have to tie their hands politically. the un will get on their case for killing civies but if you decide to fight then they can say they had no other choice but to shoot you
#174 - not really so long as the un exists neutrality can be enforced…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #212 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
UN can't do shit if America doesn't want it to. (permanent security council member)
User avatar #375 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
peacekeepers might be sent in. and even if the UN doesn't step in other organisation can enforce bans of goods and supply's from their organisation and they could pressure others to co-operate with this plan.
#173 - but you will have accomplished nothing and probably made thing…  [+] (9 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #175 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
imma push back by killing as many of theirs as i can
User avatar #177 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
youll be shot before you would even get the chance. and besides theres always more to take that soldiers place.
User avatar #257 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
Vietnam war. Clever people with inferior technology won the battle. Granted that was on their turf, but still.
User avatar #371 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
its been a long time since Vietnam. also Vietnam had the luxury of jungles and lots of cover on top of infrastructure to build proper equipment and weapons. they were better off than this situation
User avatar #380 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
And you guys would have the luxury of being at the heart of the problem. And the support of first world countries.
User avatar #402 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
well the other countries would probably support rebels and opposition for various reasons but armed conflict probably would end up bloody with very little accomplished.
User avatar #178 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then there should be more to take my place and keep fighting
User avatar #186 - strikingeight (12/24/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you, we actually could do it. Many U.S. soldiers are oath bearers, meaning they took an oath to not shoot U.S. citizens. There goes a substantial amount of the military. So long as we don't commit any war crimes, we can gain the support of foreign countries/ Americans. The revolution also would open up the flood gates for states to secede, taking soldiers, weapons, and supplies with them that may aide us. We defeated the Brits, came close to the Union, and with leadership like Obama's, I think we could do it.
User avatar #179 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
maybe at first but many people would prefer to be alive then dying for a cause that would likely end with nothing accomplished. if you want to stop such a government you have to tie their hands politically. the un will get on their case for killing civies but if you decide to fight then they can say they had no other choice but to shoot you
#170 - the whole point of making a democracy a republic styled one is…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #172 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
I wasn't arguing against fallout shelters, it was an analogy. They'll save your ass in a nuclear war if you're not hit directly. If a revolution actually happens, you'll need guns to pick a side (or to enforce your neutrality)
User avatar #174 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
not really so long as the un exists neutrality can be enforced without need of guns (though a bit slow to react) and picking a side can be as simple as a peaceful protest. violence against such a tyrannical and powerfull government would be pointless.
User avatar #212 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
UN can't do shit if America doesn't want it to. (permanent security council member)
User avatar #375 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
peacekeepers might be sent in. and even if the UN doesn't step in other organisation can enforce bans of goods and supply's from their organisation and they could pressure others to co-operate with this plan.
#169 - but they will be useless against a military as powerful as the…  [+] (11 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title +1
User avatar #171 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
if it comes to that, then i dont care if i die, cause im not going to live oppressed and as a slave
User avatar #173 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
but you will have accomplished nothing and probably made things only worse as when you are still alive theirs a chance to make things better and push back.
User avatar #175 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
imma push back by killing as many of theirs as i can
User avatar #177 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
youll be shot before you would even get the chance. and besides theres always more to take that soldiers place.
User avatar #257 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
Vietnam war. Clever people with inferior technology won the battle. Granted that was on their turf, but still.
User avatar #371 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
its been a long time since Vietnam. also Vietnam had the luxury of jungles and lots of cover on top of infrastructure to build proper equipment and weapons. they were better off than this situation
User avatar #380 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
And you guys would have the luxury of being at the heart of the problem. And the support of first world countries.
User avatar #402 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
well the other countries would probably support rebels and opposition for various reasons but armed conflict probably would end up bloody with very little accomplished.
User avatar #178 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then there should be more to take my place and keep fighting
User avatar #186 - strikingeight (12/24/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you, we actually could do it. Many U.S. soldiers are oath bearers, meaning they took an oath to not shoot U.S. citizens. There goes a substantial amount of the military. So long as we don't commit any war crimes, we can gain the support of foreign countries/ Americans. The revolution also would open up the flood gates for states to secede, taking soldiers, weapons, and supplies with them that may aide us. We defeated the Brits, came close to the Union, and with leadership like Obama's, I think we could do it.
User avatar #179 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
maybe at first but many people would prefer to be alive then dying for a cause that would likely end with nothing accomplished. if you want to stop such a government you have to tie their hands politically. the un will get on their case for killing civies but if you decide to fight then they can say they had no other choice but to shoot you
#167 - its happens plenty of times before if the countries is hit wit…  [+] (13 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #168 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then we need our guns !!
User avatar #169 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
but they will be useless against a military as powerful as the us on top of the lack of rules and emotions that would normally prevent them. there are much easier ways to fight tyranny ,bloody revolutions tend to be the worst.
User avatar #171 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
if it comes to that, then i dont care if i die, cause im not going to live oppressed and as a slave
User avatar #173 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
but you will have accomplished nothing and probably made things only worse as when you are still alive theirs a chance to make things better and push back.
User avatar #175 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
imma push back by killing as many of theirs as i can
User avatar #177 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
youll be shot before you would even get the chance. and besides theres always more to take that soldiers place.
User avatar #257 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
Vietnam war. Clever people with inferior technology won the battle. Granted that was on their turf, but still.
User avatar #371 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
its been a long time since Vietnam. also Vietnam had the luxury of jungles and lots of cover on top of infrastructure to build proper equipment and weapons. they were better off than this situation
User avatar #380 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
And you guys would have the luxury of being at the heart of the problem. And the support of first world countries.
User avatar #402 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
well the other countries would probably support rebels and opposition for various reasons but armed conflict probably would end up bloody with very little accomplished.
User avatar #178 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then there should be more to take my place and keep fighting
User avatar #186 - strikingeight (12/24/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you, we actually could do it. Many U.S. soldiers are oath bearers, meaning they took an oath to not shoot U.S. citizens. There goes a substantial amount of the military. So long as we don't commit any war crimes, we can gain the support of foreign countries/ Americans. The revolution also would open up the flood gates for states to secede, taking soldiers, weapons, and supplies with them that may aide us. We defeated the Brits, came close to the Union, and with leadership like Obama's, I think we could do it.
User avatar #179 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
maybe at first but many people would prefer to be alive then dying for a cause that would likely end with nothing accomplished. if you want to stop such a government you have to tie their hands politically. the un will get on their case for killing civies but if you decide to fight then they can say they had no other choice but to shoot you
#155 - depends on how fast this takeover is in america it would likel…  [+] (6 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title -1
User avatar #158 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
Well I hate the idea of the propoganda, but this system is in place for civilians. If you brainwash the civilians into not wanting something, then give them what they 'want'. The sad truth is that the majority rules in this country, even if the majority is wrong, misled, or uneducated. If this scenario were to happen, I'd suggest moving. But, you could always stick up for what's right, in your eyes. You could die as a martyr for a population that doesn't even support your cause. This is what sucks about starting a revolution, everybody has a different threshold of when they think society's degraded enough to intervene. Before you reach that threshold, you'll see the other martyrs as insane, and when you go off the edge, those more liberal than you will consider you the crackpot, until they in turn have reached their limit.

Not much you can really do about it, I'm afraid. However, a fallout shelter does not protect against direct nuclear strikes. Since that is the case, why would you even bother to take shelter in one during a nuclear war?

or perhaps a more apt analogy, if you have a gun, and are randomly sniped and killed one day, that gun wouldn't have been able to save you. If you have a gun and get mugged, there's a chance that gun could save your life, even though there's a chance it could make it worse than not having a gun in the first place.

And incase you're still not getting what I'm saying, just because you can't prepare for the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for anything.
User avatar #170 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
the whole point of making a democracy a republic styled one is so that the majority cannot strong arm minority's. also if there isn't much you can do what purpose does the gun serve if you think your country has gone insane. also a fallout shelter might not get targeted so theirs hope of survival even if small.
User avatar #172 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
I wasn't arguing against fallout shelters, it was an analogy. They'll save your ass in a nuclear war if you're not hit directly. If a revolution actually happens, you'll need guns to pick a side (or to enforce your neutrality)
User avatar #174 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
not really so long as the un exists neutrality can be enforced without need of guns (though a bit slow to react) and picking a side can be as simple as a peaceful protest. violence against such a tyrannical and powerfull government would be pointless.
User avatar #212 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
UN can't do shit if America doesn't want it to. (permanent security council member)
User avatar #375 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
peacekeepers might be sent in. and even if the UN doesn't step in other organisation can enforce bans of goods and supply's from their organisation and they could pressure others to co-operate with this plan.
#147 - but whats the point of fighting if it will only led to pointle…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/24/2013 on Title -1
#150 - ddylann (12/24/2013) [-]
ok youre the second person to say something like this i never once said anything about the practicality of actually fighting the government all i said was what the right to keep guns is for
#140 - it will piss off the un but the un can not intervene unless u…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/24/2013 on Title -1
#143 - shadownigga (12/24/2013) [-]
True. But no one truly knows what would happen. We can use logistics but unless it happens, we won't know for sure. Great talking my friend.
#121 - you do realize that if the military and police decided to tak…  [+] (33 new replies) 12/24/2013 on Title 0
User avatar #161 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
so the military would turn against its on people?
User avatar #418 - douthit (12/24/2013) [-]
Can you guarantee they won't? Military members have engaged in horrible acts against their own people in Germany, Rwanda, China, Russia, and even America with WW2 Japanese internment camps.
User avatar #167 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
its happens plenty of times before if the countries is hit with enough propaganda over enough time then eventually the military and civilians would become disconnected from enough for this to happen.
User avatar #168 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then we need our guns !!
User avatar #169 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
but they will be useless against a military as powerful as the us on top of the lack of rules and emotions that would normally prevent them. there are much easier ways to fight tyranny ,bloody revolutions tend to be the worst.
User avatar #171 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
if it comes to that, then i dont care if i die, cause im not going to live oppressed and as a slave
User avatar #173 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
but you will have accomplished nothing and probably made things only worse as when you are still alive theirs a chance to make things better and push back.
User avatar #175 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
imma push back by killing as many of theirs as i can
User avatar #177 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
youll be shot before you would even get the chance. and besides theres always more to take that soldiers place.
User avatar #257 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
Vietnam war. Clever people with inferior technology won the battle. Granted that was on their turf, but still.
User avatar #371 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
its been a long time since Vietnam. also Vietnam had the luxury of jungles and lots of cover on top of infrastructure to build proper equipment and weapons. they were better off than this situation
User avatar #380 - RandomAnonGuy (12/24/2013) [-]
And you guys would have the luxury of being at the heart of the problem. And the support of first world countries.
User avatar #402 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
well the other countries would probably support rebels and opposition for various reasons but armed conflict probably would end up bloody with very little accomplished.
User avatar #178 - fickenjudes (12/24/2013) [-]
then there should be more to take my place and keep fighting
User avatar #186 - strikingeight (12/24/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you, we actually could do it. Many U.S. soldiers are oath bearers, meaning they took an oath to not shoot U.S. citizens. There goes a substantial amount of the military. So long as we don't commit any war crimes, we can gain the support of foreign countries/ Americans. The revolution also would open up the flood gates for states to secede, taking soldiers, weapons, and supplies with them that may aide us. We defeated the Brits, came close to the Union, and with leadership like Obama's, I think we could do it.
User avatar #179 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
maybe at first but many people would prefer to be alive then dying for a cause that would likely end with nothing accomplished. if you want to stop such a government you have to tie their hands politically. the un will get on their case for killing civies but if you decide to fight then they can say they had no other choice but to shoot you
User avatar #153 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
Why do you think we need SO many?

Also there would be spliter groups if the military took over, and it would probably be a decently fair fight, except the civilians would have no air force or navy to speak of.
User avatar #155 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
depends on how fast this takeover is in america it would likely happen slowly so by then things like education would be mostly propaganda so if the tyranny takes its time there wouldn't be much opposition. and it doesn't matter if you armed every single non military individual in existence it would still be a blood bath in favor of the military. the us already has enough nukes to level all human life on earth and the amount of drone and missile means that the infantry on both sides might not even get to shoot each other before the conflict ends.
User avatar #158 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
Well I hate the idea of the propoganda, but this system is in place for civilians. If you brainwash the civilians into not wanting something, then give them what they 'want'. The sad truth is that the majority rules in this country, even if the majority is wrong, misled, or uneducated. If this scenario were to happen, I'd suggest moving. But, you could always stick up for what's right, in your eyes. You could die as a martyr for a population that doesn't even support your cause. This is what sucks about starting a revolution, everybody has a different threshold of when they think society's degraded enough to intervene. Before you reach that threshold, you'll see the other martyrs as insane, and when you go off the edge, those more liberal than you will consider you the crackpot, until they in turn have reached their limit.

Not much you can really do about it, I'm afraid. However, a fallout shelter does not protect against direct nuclear strikes. Since that is the case, why would you even bother to take shelter in one during a nuclear war?

or perhaps a more apt analogy, if you have a gun, and are randomly sniped and killed one day, that gun wouldn't have been able to save you. If you have a gun and get mugged, there's a chance that gun could save your life, even though there's a chance it could make it worse than not having a gun in the first place.

And incase you're still not getting what I'm saying, just because you can't prepare for the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for anything.
User avatar #170 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
the whole point of making a democracy a republic styled one is so that the majority cannot strong arm minority's. also if there isn't much you can do what purpose does the gun serve if you think your country has gone insane. also a fallout shelter might not get targeted so theirs hope of survival even if small.
User avatar #172 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
I wasn't arguing against fallout shelters, it was an analogy. They'll save your ass in a nuclear war if you're not hit directly. If a revolution actually happens, you'll need guns to pick a side (or to enforce your neutrality)
User avatar #174 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
not really so long as the un exists neutrality can be enforced without need of guns (though a bit slow to react) and picking a side can be as simple as a peaceful protest. violence against such a tyrannical and powerfull government would be pointless.
User avatar #212 - meganinja (12/24/2013) [-]
UN can't do shit if America doesn't want it to. (permanent security council member)
User avatar #375 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
peacekeepers might be sent in. and even if the UN doesn't step in other organisation can enforce bans of goods and supply's from their organisation and they could pressure others to co-operate with this plan.
#144 - ddylann (12/24/2013) [-]
also there are many more gun owners in america than police officers and soldiers
#336 - 4chan refugee (12/24/2013) [-]
Suddenly a wild M1 Abrams appears. Militia uses puny little guns. It has no effect on M1 Abrams armor. M1 Abrams uses superior fire power. It's super effective. Militia fainted!

well except maybe Texas but just replace M1 with some helicopter
#136 - ddylann (12/24/2013) [-]
im aware of all of that. thats not the point. the point is to be able to fight back thats the whole reason we have the second amendment.
User avatar #147 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
but whats the point of fighting if it will only led to pointless bloodshed. just do the peacefully protest thing wait till allies step in to blockade due to tyrannical government likely breaking some human rights laws and the government will be forced to back down a bit.
#150 - ddylann (12/24/2013) [-]
ok youre the second person to say something like this i never once said anything about the practicality of actually fighting the government all i said was what the right to keep guns is for
#129 - shadownigga (12/24/2013) [-]
So, going by that, there are 2,271,475 people in listed in the military, some of which are all over the world, so let's say around 2,000,000 in the U.S, combined with about 1-1.5 mil officers, about 3-3.5 mil enforcers, pit that up against approx 200-280 million gun owners, give or take, some of which have more than one firearm, and against the fact that if the US gov. tries to attack its own people, not only will this piss of the UN, it may also push them towards helping the armed citizens, not to mention it will leave us horribly vulnerable to attacks from china or russia
#343 - 4chan refugee (12/24/2013) [-]
How many of the civilians have any decent chance against a trained soldier? How many are just red-necks who will charge in guns blazing hitting nothing but some trees and getting shot in an instant by a trained marksman? How many civilians can get crushed beneath the tracks of some armoured vehicle they cannot even put a dent in? How many civilians have the tools to take down an attack helicopter?

While I see (and agree with) the original point of owning guns technology has made it a less powerful tool and unfortunately it also allows mentally unstable people to get guns. That is the big problem. Not that a sane person has a gun but the one unstable SOB that will use the gun in a bad way. Guns should not be banned but a bit more regulated. By all I care by an organisation that is independent from the government so it's still a public affair but for gods sake make it harder for retards to get access to guns.
User avatar #140 - thraza (12/24/2013) [-]
it will piss off the un but the un can not intervene unless un human right are being violated and even then they will be slow to intervene and will likely only send peace keepers. and in a civis vs military even if there are more gun owners the military has a massive arsenal and better organisation structure the military would just hit major supply areas that it cant take by force and bomb bases of the rebels. war are fought with more than guns and the military has the logistics command and disruption methods required to more than easily crush such a rebellion.
#143 - shadownigga (12/24/2013) [-]
True. But no one truly knows what would happen. We can use logistics but unless it happens, we won't know for sure. Great talking my friend.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1100

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - grandtheftkoala **User deleted account** (12/21/2013) [-]
1st XDDDDD
1st XDDDDD
 Friends (0)