FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER. do you speak it?. funny tumblr freedom
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (311)
[ 311 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
101 comments displayed.
#2 - mudkipfucker
Reply +27
(04/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
< What America says to other countries
#93 to #2 - kkkkk
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Since when does America apologize for something?
#257 to #93 - drtrousersnake
Reply +3
(05/01/2013) [-]
Our hat made us do it
#12 to #2 - dafiltafish
Reply +3
(05/01/2013) [-]
... n. z. and s.k.
#20 to #12 - mudkipfucker
Reply +78
(05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#102 to #20 - anon
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
you mean that the latin america and canada are a threat to 'merica? hue
#157 to #102 - suikerpapa
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
It's funny how it's implied that Mexico is a threat to America
#125 to #2 - andnowducks
Reply +17
(05/01/2013) [-]
#126 to #125 - mudkipfucker
Reply +15
(05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
We have a Harbour full of your tea. Don't make America do that again, Britain
#131 to #126 - andnowducks
Reply +8
(05/01/2013) [-]
Wat u sayin m8 i cant hear u ovr big ben
#133 to #131 - mudkipfucker
Reply +12
(05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I can't hear you over winning the American Revolution
#135 to #133 - andnowducks
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
U av 3 ealf care dont
#137 to #135 - mudkipfucker
Reply +5
(05/01/2013) [-]
You don't need free healthcare when FREEDOM protects you
#139 to #137 - andnowducks
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
I guess that's why Britain has free healthcare.
#140 to #139 - mudkipfucker
Reply +9
(05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Socialist heathcare makes Freedom Eagle Cry
#143 to #140 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
The freest countries freedom makes the Pigeon stop eating from the free Brits!
#145 to #143 - mudkipfucker
Reply +5
(05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I have no idea what you just said there so.... ummm....

FREEDOM! USA USA USA USA

#146 to #145 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
God save the queen, from the queen.
#188 to #133 - anon
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
You guys only managed that because of France.
#192 to #188 - mudkipfucker
Reply +7
(05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
<why America Won
#296 to #188 - anon
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
yeah i guess India, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Iraq, South Africa, Palestine, and Burma must have all gotten help from France too.
#136 to #133 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
u
#312 to #125 - bearpirate
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
Yall ************ need freedom.
#319 to #312 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
wars*
#318 to #312 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Us ************* have freedom, and implying Britain didn't help America in most of their
#320 to #318 - bearpirate
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
#323 to #320 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/03/2013) [-]
'ere's Britain.
#325 to #323 - bearpirate
Reply 0
(05/03/2013) [-]
#168 to #125 - dreamthrow
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
Free healthcare is a load of ****
#172 to #168 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
But isn't free healthcare free health care? and not ****?
#175 to #172 - dreamthrow
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
It's a tax in disguise.
#182 to #175 - rifee
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
God forbid people help eachother out:P
#176 to #175 - andnowducks
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
Oh, my apologies guy who doesn't just rant about freedom.
#177 to #176 - dreamthrow
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
free =/= freedom
#59 - toggme
Reply +36
(05/01/2013) [-]
-Knock knock

-Who's there?

-Freedom

-Freedom who?

-Free domino's
#60 to #59 - toggme
Reply +54
(05/01/2013) [-]
#232 - FishMonster
Reply +50
(05/01/2013) [-]
#240 to #232 - mudkipfucker
Reply +7
(05/01/2013) [-]
This is getting saved
#22 - supamonkey
Reply +26
(05/01/2013) [-]
Dem side effects...
#166 to #22 - wizlock
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
Why not Phoenix Wright?
#39 to #22 - holeymoley
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
i was beat by a good 3 hours. damn
#158 - milthyfoustache
Reply +8
(05/01/2013) [-]
Everyone's arguing about America, and I'm just sat here. Naked. With a Union Flag wrapped around me. Masturbating.
#160 to #158 - deathcampforjewtie
Reply +23
(05/01/2013) [-]
This guy's Union Jacking it.
#167 to #160 - zaizer
Reply +4
(05/01/2013) [-]
#163 to #160 - milthyfoustache
Reply +3
(05/01/2013) [-]
hahaha brilliant
#181 to #160 - Loppytaffy
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
He's have to be on a boat for that; it's only called the Union Jack when flown on her majesty's vessels.
#54 - doddythechef
Reply +23
(05/01/2013) [-]
mfw uk has feedom and nobody cares
mfw uk has feedom and nobody cares
#94 to #54 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
american media is trickling down onto public opinion, happens all the time
#65 to #54 - mads
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
Since when does the UK have an extreme opinion on anything
gay Marriage Uk - 'Oh so gay people can get married now, uh ok. Why couldn't they before?'
gay Marriage America - 'It's in our right to get married you biggot' 'It's against god and what marriage is!'
#99 to #65 - haunterbrony
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Seriously. WHY COULDN'T THEY BEFORE. I never got this.

Inb4 the bible says so. I want legitimate reasons. Or is it really only because of that?
#171 to #54 - dreamthrow
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
That's because there's CCTV cameras ******* everywhere.
#74 to #54 - douthit
Reply +4
(05/01/2013) [-]
Aren't guns--or at least pistols--like 100% prohibited?
#84 to #74 - doddythechef
Reply +5
(05/01/2013) [-]
no you allowed rifles
pistols are allowed with proper regulations and i think they check you have a solid steel safe for them
#85 to #84 - douthit
Reply +3
(05/01/2013) [-]
Geez. And no "assault" weapons, I'm sure.
#88 to #85 - doddythechef
Reply +8
(05/01/2013) [-]
definitely not
and no offence it should be like that, why would i need an ak-47 in my house?
#90 to #88 - douthit
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
I've got no right to claim to know what you "need" or want. But if others want to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else, I've got no right to use violence (via government and police) to prevent it. The same goes for all nonviolent and victimless crimes.
#285 to #90 - bigmanfifty
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
the Sandy Hook parents might disagree with you there
#91 to #90 - doddythechef
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
look as much as I like discussion (I actually do)
im really not in the mood as i just got miss a once in a lifetime opportunity to go to space and im pretty ****** off
sorry
#242 to #91 - anon
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
It's alright - I can take it from here. In every society there has to be some limitations and rules, if there's anarchy some people would seize power eventually. Americans don't have the freedom to use drugs - some sees that as a lack of freedom, others sees it as a necessity.

I think that for a country to be called free it needs things like freedom of speech, free elections, freedom of religion and possibly some other basic freedoms. Most western countries have the mentioned, so I'd call them free.
#78 to #74 - mads
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
in the UK? yeah, the only gun you can actually own is a shotgun, and only if you have a permit, and can show that you are using it for hunting.
#183 to #78 - rifee
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
Since when was freedom measured by the amount of guns you're allowed to own?
#185 to #183 - mads
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
Different conversation. This was started on guns. comment #74 'Aren't guns--or at least pistols--like 100% prohibited?'
#186 to #185 - rifee
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
carry on then *tilt hat*
#190 to #186 - mads
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
It's ok
It's ok
#83 to #78 - douthit
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
That's ridiculous.
#87 to #83 - mads
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
why? I never understood the american obsession with guns
#89 to #87 - douthit
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
It's not ridiculous simply because of what it restricts, but the fact that it does restrict anything nonviolent and victimless. Gun ownership in itself harms nobody, so I think it's immoral for government to inevitably use violence (via police) to enforce laws against nonviolent and victimless crimes. Laws like that seek to prevent violence and aggression, but in doing so they defeat their own purpose. The same goes for laws against gambling, drinking, prostitution, drug use, etc.
#92 to #89 - mads
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
Our police aren't violent. And because it is so hard to get a gun, the only people who would have them would probably use them in a violent way. It is insainly difficult to get hold of a legal gun, so they are bought on the black market. Now other than hunting guns aren't needed for anything here as noone has a gun, so the people that do rather want to defend themselves against someone 'for which they will probably give the gun over peacefully' or someone who wants to use to gun against someone. It is because they are and always have been illegel which makes it a simple subject. If it was a new law then I would get people still having guns. But only few people are allowed guns.

Also our police do not carry guns either.
#100 to #92 - douthit
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Every law government passes is ultimately enforced through violence (or force), whether that force is utilized through a gun, baton, club, fist, or prison cell. And even if someone obtains a gun illegally, that doesn't necessarily equate to an immoral use of it, and shouldn't be punished, since in itself it's nonviolent.
#104 to #100 - mads
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
However it opens the gate for violence. It is against the law for a reason. And doing anything against the law is punishable by what the offence is, be it streaking, or being in possesion of a gun. It's about the laws that everyone has to abide by. But because guns are difficult to get hod of it is assumed that it is for an immoral purpose. This assumption is for everyones safety not just to put people in prison.
#109 to #104 - douthit
Reply 0
(05/01/2013) [-]
If we're to outlaw anything that opens the gate for violence, the whole world will soon be under authoritarian control. Virtually anything can be used to commit violence, or to make the commission of unwarranted violence easier. But doing something illegal doesn't equate to immorality, nor does it imply the eminent initiation of violence. It's a fallacy to say that everything illegal is necessarily immoral.
#112 to #109 - mads
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Ok. I prefer to live in a world where guns are prohibited. And they are still illegal because they are guns, yes having a gun doesn't equal violence. but what it does do is make it easier for murder to be commited. The gun crime for the UK is a hella amount lower than america (yes the knife crime is higher, but we don't have people arguing that knives should be kept on the streets). The only use for a gun is killing, there is no other use for it. So it makes sense that you keep something illegal when it's primary use is to kill.
#115 to #112 - douthit
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
You like having a military, don't you. As soon as you approve of the existence of a military, then you've stated that it's illogical to outlaw something simply because its primary use is to kill.

Plus guns are also used for enjoyment in target shooting, or removing pests (coyotes, snakes, etc.), or in self-defense (also showing that violence isn't always bad). You can't justly inflict unjust laws upon millions of people because you don't like something.
#118 to #115 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#120 to #118 - douthit
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Wow, what do you even say...?

For one thing, if most people think gays should be herded into boxcars and shipped to concentration camps, does that also make it okay? No, of course not. Because you're initiating violence against them. The same with gun owners. And you can't just write it off as, "we decided not to have them." No, you decided for the rest of your nation that they wouldn't have them. This is why democracy is no more moral than totalitarianism.
#129 to #120 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#116 to #115 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#121 to #115 - mads
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
In fact I don't like having a military. The reason countries have militaries is because other countries have militaries. However laws change when it comes to war. I don't agree with taking something away which is used for something else. However the primary use of the original gun is to kill, that was why it was invented, the self defence came when the second gun was invented.
And you argument about them being used to get rid of pests is redundent in the UK as the biggest pest we have are rats, and shooting a rat is just uneeded, illogical and just plane overkill.
I am not trying to take your gun away, I am just saying it makes sense for them to be illegal in the UK as they are completely uneeded for many reasons.
And those laws aren't inflicted because I don't like them, I am supporting those laws because they make sense for where I live.
#122 to #121 - douthit
Reply +1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Right aren't based on your subjective view of others' needs. And even the first gun could be used in self-defense. This is a great logical reason for the legalization of firearms, because guns are the great equalizers. With a common handgun, even a 100-pound woman can adequately defend herself from any sized attacker who is bent on murder, rape, or assault.
#128 to #122 - mads
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
It's not a subjective view of other peoples needs. It is fact, guns are not needed in the UK outside of hunting, for which you need proof that you hunt and a permit.
Yes that is a great logical reason for legalisation of firearms for example In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.
Guns are probably needed in some places around the world, however it is well known and accepted that guns are not needed in the UK
#97 to #89 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#101 to #97 - douthit
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
The right to free speech, religion, and to keep and bear arms all fall under the overarching right to have nobody initiate force against you. Having the right to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anybody else. And simply owning a gun is victimless and nonviolent.
#108 to #101 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#110 to #108 - douthit
Reply +2
(05/01/2013) [-]
Anything can be used to aid in the initiation of force, be it a gun, a car, a baseball bat, or a hammer. And as for government, I don't believe governments are ever representative. While Germany does have proportional representation, from what I understand, I'm sure you still have secret ballots. People elected to office don't even know who voted for them, so I can't see how they're at all representative. And citizens don't have a contract with their officials, from what I understand. Those in government are under no obligation to fulfill the promises of their campaign.
#113 to #110 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#114 to #110 - infernis
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#117 to #114 - douthit
Reply -1
(05/01/2013) [-]
Some would call rugby violent, but it's not immoral. The use of violence isn't inherently evil, only the initiation of violence. Rape is immoral, but using violence in self-defense isn't immoral, for example. So saying that guns are only for hurting people, even if true, doesn't make all gun use immoral.

Guns aren't only for killing people. Many people own guns for target shooting for enjoyment, for stress relief, or for collecting and enjoyment that way, or for removal of pests (snakes, coyotes, etc.). I don't think you've spent much time around guns.

You can't justly endorse a government to initiate violence against someone simply beacuse you disagree with something they do, which initiates force against no one. I have no doubt that the gun laws in your country are not based on a 100.0% agreement. The majority has no more right to initiate force against the minority than your neighbors do to evict you from your home just becaue they don't like you. We should all respect individual rights, even if they're in a field you don't personally agree with.
#124 to #117 - infernis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#19 - somedsoup
Reply +19
(05/01/2013) [-]
#64 - marcalo
Reply +16
(05/01/2013) [-]
#251 - pudingcade
Reply +14
(05/01/2013) [-]
#269 to #251 - darkhaitsu **User deleted account**
Reply +4
(05/01/2013) [-]
eat terrorism
#266 to #251 - sircollinshaw **User deleted account**
+5
has deleted their comment [-]
#275 to #251 - sagedivinity
Reply +5
(05/01/2013) [-]
Barf liberty
#276 to #275 - pudingcade
Reply +6
(05/01/2013) [-]
**** justice
#23 - chandaman
Reply +14
(05/01/2013) [-]