FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER. do you speak it?. knock knock DE there 7 Would never WEEK freedom rings we if l takes longer than so minutes your freedom is free Ifa. rou funny tumblr freedom
x

FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER

 
FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER. do you speak it?. knock knock DE there 7 Would never WEEK freedom rings we if l takes longer than so minutes your freedom is free Ifa. rou

do you speak it?

knock knock
DE there 7
Would never WEEK
freedom rings
we if l takes longer than so minutes your
freedom is free
Ifa. rou experience freedom lasting four hours or
more. contact your immediately.
eagle -one separately
Some restrictions apply
tramlines not Intruded
limited time offer
side Effects may include liberty and justice for all
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1961
Views: 69097
Favorited: 271
Submitted: 04/30/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to climbingupthewalls submit to reddit

Comments(311):

[ 311 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #240 to #232 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
This is getting saved
User avatar #59 - toggme ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
-Knock knock

-Who's there?

-Freedom

-Freedom who?

-Free domino's
#60 to #59 - toggme ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
#277 - bowties (05/01/2013) [-]
Inhale Freedom   
   
   
Exhale Patriotism
Inhale Freedom


Exhale Patriotism
#259 - Dwarf (05/01/2013) [-]
All senior citizens should have FREEDOM.
User avatar #269 to #251 - darkhaitsu **User deleted account** (05/01/2013) [-]
eat terrorism
+5
#266 to #251 - sircollinshaw **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #275 to #251 - sagedivinity (05/01/2013) [-]
Barf liberty
User avatar #276 to #275 - pudingcade (05/01/2013) [-]
**** justice
#247 - loluxxxx (05/01/2013) [-]
'MURICA
User avatar #144 - thewalkingderp (05/01/2013) [-]
Freedom isn't free, but the US Marines will pay your share.
User avatar #170 to #144 - StormEagle (05/01/2013) [-]
we in the army do fight as well you know
#54 - doddythechef (05/01/2013) [-]
mfw uk has feedom and nobody cares
mfw uk has feedom and nobody cares
User avatar #94 to #54 - herecomesjohnny (05/01/2013) [-]
american media is trickling down onto public opinion, happens all the time
User avatar #65 to #54 - mads (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!'
User avatar #99 to #65 - haunterbrony (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?
User avatar #74 to #54 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
Aren't guns--or at least pistols--like 100% prohibited?
User avatar #84 to #74 - doddythechef (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
User avatar #85 to #84 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
Geez. And no "assault" weapons, I'm sure.
User avatar #88 to #85 - doddythechef (05/01/2013) [-]
definitely not
and no offence it should be like that, why would i need an ak-47 in my house?
User avatar #90 to #88 - douthit (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.
User avatar #91 to #90 - doddythechef (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 (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.
User avatar #285 to #90 - bigmanfifty (05/01/2013) [-]
the Sandy Hook parents might disagree with you there
User avatar #78 to #74 - mads (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.
User avatar #83 to #78 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
That's ridiculous.
User avatar #87 to #83 - mads (05/01/2013) [-]
why? I never understood the american obsession with guns
User avatar #89 to #87 - douthit (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.
User avatar #92 to #89 - mads (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.
User avatar #100 to #92 - douthit (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.
User avatar #104 to #100 - mads (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.
User avatar #109 to #104 - douthit (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.
User avatar #112 to #109 - mads (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.
User avatar #115 to #112 - douthit (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.
0
#118 to #115 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #120 to #118 - douthit (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.
0
#129 to #120 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #121 to #115 - mads (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.
User avatar #122 to #121 - douthit (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.
User avatar #128 to #122 - mads (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
0
#116 to #115 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
0
#97 to #89 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #101 to #97 - douthit (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.
0
#108 to #101 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #110 to #108 - douthit (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.
-1
#114 to #110 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #117 to #114 - douthit (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.
0
#124 to #117 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
0
#113 to #110 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #183 to #78 - rifee ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
Since when was freedom measured by the amount of guns you're allowed to own?
User avatar #185 to #183 - mads (05/01/2013) [-]
Different conversation. This was started on guns. comment #74 'Aren't guns--or at least pistols--like 100% prohibited?'
User avatar #186 to #185 - rifee ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
carry on then *tilt hat*
#190 to #186 - mads (05/01/2013) [-]
It's ok
It's ok
User avatar #171 to #54 - dreamthrow (05/01/2013) [-]
That's because there's CCTV cameras ******* everywhere.
#22 - supamonkey (05/01/2013) [-]
Dem side effects...
User avatar #166 to #22 - wizlock (05/01/2013) [-]
Why not Phoenix Wright?
#39 to #22 - holeymoley (05/01/2013) [-]
i was beat by a good 3 hours. damn
#246 - ragingflamingos (05/01/2013) [-]
If your freedom is accompanied by unmanned drone strikes, please contact your embassy immediately. This is a sign of serious side effects and can lead to political dissidents, terrorism and regime changes if left untreated
#260 to #246 - gilfhunter (05/01/2013) [-]
Hey look, my desktop background XD
#206 - ninjabadger (05/01/2013) [-]
Hold up, President needs me.
Hold up, President needs me.
User avatar #61 - mohne (05/01/2013) [-]
i remember when i got my first pet eagle, the ceremony was awesome
#2 - mudkipfucker (04/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
< What America says to other countries
User avatar #93 to #2 - kkkkk (05/01/2013) [-]
Since when does America apologize for something?
#257 to #93 - drtrousersnake (05/01/2013) [-]
Our hat made us do it
User avatar #12 to #2 - dafiltafish (05/01/2013) [-]
... n. z. and s.k.
#102 to #20 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
you mean that the latin america and canada are a threat to 'merica? hue
User avatar #157 to #102 - suikerpapa (05/01/2013) [-]
It's funny how it's implied that Mexico is a threat to America
#126 to #125 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
We have a Harbour full of your tea. Don't make America do that again, Britain
User avatar #131 to #126 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
Wat u sayin m8 i cant hear u ovr big ben
#133 to #131 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I can't hear you over winning the American Revolution
#188 to #133 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
You guys only managed that because of France.
#192 to #188 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
<why America Won
#296 to #188 - anon (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.
User avatar #135 to #133 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
U av 3 ealf care dont
User avatar #137 to #135 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
You don't need free healthcare when FREEDOM protects you
User avatar #139 to #137 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
I guess that's why Britain has free healthcare.
#140 to #139 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Socialist heathcare makes Freedom Eagle Cry
User avatar #143 to #140 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
The freest countries freedom makes the Pigeon stop eating from the free Brits!
#145 to #143 - mudkipfucker (05/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I have no idea what you just said there so.... ummm....

FREEDOM! USA USA USA USA

User avatar #146 to #145 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
God save the queen, from the queen.
#312 to #125 - bearpirate (05/01/2013) [-]
Yall ************ need freedom.
User avatar #319 to #312 - andnowducks (05/02/2013) [-]
wars*
#318 to #312 - andnowducks (05/02/2013) [-]
Us ************* have freedom, and implying Britain didn't help America in most of their
User avatar #323 to #320 - andnowducks (05/03/2013) [-]
'ere's Britain.
User avatar #168 to #125 - dreamthrow (05/01/2013) [-]
Free healthcare is a load of ****
User avatar #172 to #168 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
But isn't free healthcare free health care? and not **** ?
User avatar #175 to #172 - dreamthrow (05/01/2013) [-]
It's a tax in disguise.
User avatar #182 to #175 - rifee ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
God forbid people help eachother out:P
User avatar #176 to #175 - andnowducks (05/01/2013) [-]
Oh, my apologies guy who doesn't just rant about freedom.
User avatar #177 to #176 - dreamthrow (05/01/2013) [-]
free =/= freedom
[ 311 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)