Upload
Login or register

EpicWin

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:3/23/2009
Last Login:9/22/2016
Location:Texas
Stats
Content Thumbs: 1750 total,  1903 ,  153
Comment Thumbs: 1137 total,  1462 ,  325
Content Level Progress: 48% (48/100)
Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 62% (31/50)
Level 210 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:69094
Times Content Favorited:73 times
Total Comments Made:940
FJ Points:2566
Favorite Tags: parody (2)

latest user's comments

#113 - A speeding car could kill yourself and others. Not recycling c…  [+] (21 replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry +3
#114 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You are avoiding my main argument being that there is simply no excuse to keep guns in the hands of everyone.

There is an excuse for cars as they are a highly efficient method of transportation and there is an excuse for knives as they can be used to prepare food. Guns simply have no use beyond killing. Indeed, in some cases, it may be self-defence, but is it just me or does it seem a bit dodgy that it is technically possible for one manufacturer to sell a gun to the killer and to the victim?
User avatar
#115 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
What use is there for cigarettes?
User avatar
#387 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
Stress relief is a major reason. But yes, cigarettes have no real use, as the same effects can be obtained by other objects which don't have anywhere near the same amount of harmful chemicals.
E-cigarettes or vapes, for example, provide nicotine, yet the only byproduct of breathing it out is water vapor.
But enforcing the reduction of those is silly because they don't solely exist to kill. A gun does.
#117 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Are you actually trying to argue that people only smoke to hurt other people?

Some people find comfort in smoking and I see no problem in other people self-harming to achieve a sense of euphoria.
User avatar
#131 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Guns exist as a higher form of warfare, yes they are primarily based around the purpose of killing, but when i take a rifle in hand and shoot at a target, i find relaxation in it. When i practice my marksmanship, i find peace in it. There is a calm in the target, and in the trigger. Practicing my shooting abilities help me keep sane, and to prevent myself from committing suicide. It gave me something that was mine, something that was my own freedom. Guns may be able to kill, but then again, i can kill a man with a tin can, i can kill a man with just about anything in a room, including my bare hands; guns are just a more ultimate form of killing. There is a reason why guns should not be banned. A Japanese war general once said "It would be impossible to invade homeland America, for behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle waiting for you." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

A mans body is his own, and if you wish to harm yourself, then so be it, but your actions will always affect those around you, no matter how mundane they may seem. Committing suicide affects your family and friends, smoking harms those around you, even in small measures, i spent times around smokers as a child, and when i first smelled fresh, non smoky air, i almost vomited. You are a fool to think guns are the greatest threat in the world, the truth of the fact is that 3 out of 5 deaths from firearms are suicide, then another 4 out of 5 of those remaining are self-defence cases.
#140 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if you want to go shooting. This does not justify you keeping a gun in your home.
User avatar
#142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar
#155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar
#169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar
#177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar
#185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar
#164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar
#170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
User avatar
#128 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Some people enjoy going to the shooting range and challenging themselves to shoot targets. They get a sense of enjoyment out of it as a sport.
This doesnt hurt anyone.
So neither hurt anyone and both are simple a way someone chooses to enjoy themselves.
One of them WILL hurt at least one person and the other may never hurt anyone or anything.
User avatar
#132 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
^^
#130 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem in guns being allowed for rent on the range, or for a membership where you can go to shoot all you like.

This does not justify being allowed to take the gun home, however. I have no problems with guns used in such a controlled environment.
#101 - defend* 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry 0
#99 - Suicide only hurts yourself. Except it doesnt, It hurts everyo…  [+] (24 replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry +4
#105 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Except he compares weapons with the power to hurt others with weapons with the power to hurt yourself. Sure, it hurts other people around me if I kill myself, but I am in control of my own body. I am, however, not in control of other's, so I go killing someone else.

Also, I'm against hunting, so to avoid a long argument, let's try to stay away from that topic. Killing is killing, in my optic.
User avatar
#113 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
A speeding car could kill yourself and others. Not recycling could eventually lead to killing just about anything you could think of. The point is everything kills the living. There is no immortality. It you start to take away one thing, you take away more and more, until nothing is left but to sit in a padded room and wait to die. I we start taking away one right where will it end? And what good would the world be without rights and freedoms. That's what flash is saying... "You start with guns? Then what?"
#114 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You are avoiding my main argument being that there is simply no excuse to keep guns in the hands of everyone.

There is an excuse for cars as they are a highly efficient method of transportation and there is an excuse for knives as they can be used to prepare food. Guns simply have no use beyond killing. Indeed, in some cases, it may be self-defence, but is it just me or does it seem a bit dodgy that it is technically possible for one manufacturer to sell a gun to the killer and to the victim?
User avatar
#115 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
What use is there for cigarettes?
User avatar
#387 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
Stress relief is a major reason. But yes, cigarettes have no real use, as the same effects can be obtained by other objects which don't have anywhere near the same amount of harmful chemicals.
E-cigarettes or vapes, for example, provide nicotine, yet the only byproduct of breathing it out is water vapor.
But enforcing the reduction of those is silly because they don't solely exist to kill. A gun does.
#117 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Are you actually trying to argue that people only smoke to hurt other people?

Some people find comfort in smoking and I see no problem in other people self-harming to achieve a sense of euphoria.
User avatar
#131 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Guns exist as a higher form of warfare, yes they are primarily based around the purpose of killing, but when i take a rifle in hand and shoot at a target, i find relaxation in it. When i practice my marksmanship, i find peace in it. There is a calm in the target, and in the trigger. Practicing my shooting abilities help me keep sane, and to prevent myself from committing suicide. It gave me something that was mine, something that was my own freedom. Guns may be able to kill, but then again, i can kill a man with a tin can, i can kill a man with just about anything in a room, including my bare hands; guns are just a more ultimate form of killing. There is a reason why guns should not be banned. A Japanese war general once said "It would be impossible to invade homeland America, for behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle waiting for you." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

A mans body is his own, and if you wish to harm yourself, then so be it, but your actions will always affect those around you, no matter how mundane they may seem. Committing suicide affects your family and friends, smoking harms those around you, even in small measures, i spent times around smokers as a child, and when i first smelled fresh, non smoky air, i almost vomited. You are a fool to think guns are the greatest threat in the world, the truth of the fact is that 3 out of 5 deaths from firearms are suicide, then another 4 out of 5 of those remaining are self-defence cases.
#140 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if you want to go shooting. This does not justify you keeping a gun in your home.
User avatar
#142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar
#155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar
#169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar
#177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar
#185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar
#164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar
#170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
User avatar
#128 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Some people enjoy going to the shooting range and challenging themselves to shoot targets. They get a sense of enjoyment out of it as a sport.
This doesnt hurt anyone.
So neither hurt anyone and both are simple a way someone chooses to enjoy themselves.
One of them WILL hurt at least one person and the other may never hurt anyone or anything.
User avatar
#132 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
^^
#130 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem in guns being allowed for rent on the range, or for a membership where you can go to shoot all you like.

This does not justify being allowed to take the gun home, however. I have no problems with guns used in such a controlled environment.
User avatar
#101 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
defend*
#7 - me.jpg 11/02/2013 on Classic /b/ullshit +10
#46 - "US police force" Da **** is that? I love how it mak…  [+] (2 replies) 10/26/2013 on US Police Force +1
User avatar
#49 - inoland (10/26/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

or he could mean United State's police force as in the police forces in the us
User avatar
#50 - EpicWin (10/26/2013) [-]
He was referring to the latter which is why i had a problem with how it was said. Its not like the US goverment has any control over who gets denied a job. With the exception of race or religion i guess