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

hide menu

bobbysnobby

Rank #2041 on Comments
no avatar Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to bobbysnobby Block bobbysnobby Invite bobbysnobby to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/20/2010
Last Login:12/18/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2041
Highest Content Rank:#25533
Highest Comment Rank:#1679
Content Thumbs: 16 total,  21 ,  5
Comment Thumbs: 4718 total,  5918 ,  1200
Content Level Progress: 33.89% (20/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 43% (43/100)
Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5033
Total Comments Made:1062
FJ Points:4041

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#11 - Its math not maths. Of all the stupid stuff we do in…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/15/2014 on The risk I took was... -2
User avatar #18 - atoaster (12/16/2014) [-]
Uh... Consider this:

Mathmatics is a title for several branching divisions, each one a mathematic. Because of this, geometry, algebra, ect. all file under maths.

This can be found in the sciences as well. Ever head of someone say hard sciences? They're not trying to say a number, but rather a quantative amount, because of the number. Biology and chemistry are part of the hard sciences. Psychology and economics are soft sciences. Note the s at the end.

Like you said, someone wouldn't say one mathmatics, two mathematics but would count geometry, algebra, calculus, trig.
#2 - Comment deleted 12/14/2014 on Kingdom Rush Origins -... 0
#23 - Fahrenheit is fine off all the stupid american measuring syste…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/14/2014 on cool stuff +2
User avatar #52 - literalguy (12/14/2014) [-]
C also uses decimals breaking it down even further but don't report it on a news station because the points can differ from a distance of a few meters
#16 - ADC is over rated. Its a normal be creative. 12/14/2014 on The day, my whole team... +4
#6 - This is the only thing that came to mind given that image. 12/14/2014 on You can't say no 0
#66 - Its actually getting rather amusing now. What i mean… 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA 0
#58 - I'm not a liberal. And your comments are starting to…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA 0
#64 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
#52 - I believe the argument is that having guns is not so much a pr…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA +1
#56 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
Does this take into consideration gang fights involving two gangs who both have guns? If it does then the average person is mostly unaffected.
#55 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any man can be a liberal. Damn, you sound like a pussy. You are afraid of a mythical gun culture, black rifles with scary accessories, and imagined hill-billy gun owners looking for a fight.

F*ck. You're even so cliche that you concern yourself with the reason people own guns. How about because I can? How about that? I own just to exercise my rights and so urban-liberal-beta-male faggots check for me under their bed at night like some sort of patriot boogeyman. I'll own guns just because it bothers people like you.

Interestingly, if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you. Have you no self respect? Faggot, faggot, faggot.
#58 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I'm not a liberal.

And your comments are starting to read like an example of Poe's law. "if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you." This is b8 if i ever saw it.

My point about gun culture, is that if there is ever a group which will hurt gun rights going forward it is gun culture. The shit they try to get away with will earn pushback.
#64 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
#41 - More than 4 times more likely to be shot in assault, not owner…  [+] (8 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA -1
#45 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
Fine. I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. Okay, let's say you're right. So? What's your point? How does this one statistic prove that gun owners are not responsible?

It seems as though you found ONE piece of evidence that fits your narrative, and you are using it to generalize all gun owners--all other facts be damned!
#52 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I believe the argument is that having guns is not so much a protection as people who own guns and are willing to use them take bigger risks. So far as i see it it's the only way you can explain that data unless gun owners all have some other attribute they as a group all share.

My narrative is that gun culture is scary which is subjective. The other position is that gun owners as a group are no more or less responsible than non gun owners which is a subjective concept "responsible" but that there are studies which show gun owners as a group put them selves at risk more than non gun owners.
#56 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
Does this take into consideration gang fights involving two gangs who both have guns? If it does then the average person is mostly unaffected.
#55 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any man can be a liberal. Damn, you sound like a pussy. You are afraid of a mythical gun culture, black rifles with scary accessories, and imagined hill-billy gun owners looking for a fight.

F*ck. You're even so cliche that you concern yourself with the reason people own guns. How about because I can? How about that? I own just to exercise my rights and so urban-liberal-beta-male faggots check for me under their bed at night like some sort of patriot boogeyman. I'll own guns just because it bothers people like you.

Interestingly, if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you. Have you no self respect? Faggot, faggot, faggot.
#58 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I'm not a liberal.

And your comments are starting to read like an example of Poe's law. "if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you." This is b8 if i ever saw it.

My point about gun culture, is that if there is ever a group which will hurt gun rights going forward it is gun culture. The shit they try to get away with will earn pushback.
#64 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
User avatar #42 - drldrl (12/11/2014) [-]
Well then actually say what you mean instead of generalized statements.

Also, Branas is a doctor. Don't think he's qualified to be examining this.
#34 - This **** isnt unpopular, Ill give you unpopular.…  [+] (20 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA -8
#117 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
It is funny that you are proving that his opinion is in fact the unpopular one, and the one OP posted is pretty standard (for the US atleast).
Also have you guys ever stopped to think that maybe you are more likely to get hurt when robbed in the US, because the criminal is afraid you might be able to fire back. In my country there are only 1-2 people dying from guns every year. And I like to attribute that to the fact that guns are illegal.
User avatar #94 - fitchy (12/11/2014) [-]
most gun culture is about the fact that guns are fuckin cool. No, not in the sense that "HURGADUUURH EXPLOSIONS!!" but in a mechanical, historical, and skill sense. Firearms can be collectibles, a hobby, a means of putting food on the table. The fact that you even think about empowerment makes you a fucking twat. The whole reason the human race is a thing is because we seek to become better at everything we do. Hunters began throwing rocks, then they tied the rocks to shit to make spears and arrows, then they made better ones etc...
Also, the fact that civilian firearms resemble military firearms IS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A GUN HAS TO FUCKING LOOK!
An AR or an AK platform firearm has to fucking look like that to function. The fact that they can be modular and have attachments or larger capacity magazines is the only think you could even think about being uncomfortable about. What do you want them to do, make a fuckin neon orange AR, with no barrel cover or heat guard?
And gun owners are less likely to be injured with a firearm if anything, i someone points a gun at you, and you have one to, you better believe you have a better chance of not getting shot than the fucker without a gun. That statistic comes from negligence of retards who somehow get a gun illegally that is factored in.
I swear to god if you live in california...
#74 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
cutting my finger on an edge while i'm cleaning my gun technically counts as an injury attained from a firearm
User avatar #37 - drldrl (12/11/2014) [-]
"gun owners are more than twice as likely to be injured by a firearm than non owners"
No shit, numbnuts. That's basic logic. I could say cat owners are more likely to be killed by cats than non owners, and it's 100% true. They have more exposure to it.
#88 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
A cat has it's own agency. A gun doesn't.
User avatar #86 - theruinedsage (12/11/2014) [-]
Driving a car also increases your chances of being in a car accident. Which is something you have to accept if you want a personal vehicle for transportation

But getting a car to decrease the chance of dying in a car accident, because it makes it harder for people to run you over, is moronic.
User avatar #71 - captainprincess (12/11/2014) [-]
Uh
No it isn't

Cats don't really... kill people
User avatar #171 - skubasteve (12/11/2014) [-]
Cats? No. The diseases they carry? Absolutely.
User avatar #178 - captainprincess (12/11/2014) [-]
Well sure if you let them run rampant like any other wild animal
keep them groomed and looked after and medically clean, you'll be fine too
#41 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
More than 4 times more likely to be shot in assault, not owner accident. Numbnuts.

Branas, Charles C., et al. "Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault." American journal of public health 99.11 (2009): 2034.
#45 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
Fine. I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. Okay, let's say you're right. So? What's your point? How does this one statistic prove that gun owners are not responsible?

It seems as though you found ONE piece of evidence that fits your narrative, and you are using it to generalize all gun owners--all other facts be damned!
#52 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I believe the argument is that having guns is not so much a protection as people who own guns and are willing to use them take bigger risks. So far as i see it it's the only way you can explain that data unless gun owners all have some other attribute they as a group all share.

My narrative is that gun culture is scary which is subjective. The other position is that gun owners as a group are no more or less responsible than non gun owners which is a subjective concept "responsible" but that there are studies which show gun owners as a group put them selves at risk more than non gun owners.
#56 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
Does this take into consideration gang fights involving two gangs who both have guns? If it does then the average person is mostly unaffected.
#55 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any man can be a liberal. Damn, you sound like a pussy. You are afraid of a mythical gun culture, black rifles with scary accessories, and imagined hill-billy gun owners looking for a fight.

F*ck. You're even so cliche that you concern yourself with the reason people own guns. How about because I can? How about that? I own just to exercise my rights and so urban-liberal-beta-male faggots check for me under their bed at night like some sort of patriot boogeyman. I'll own guns just because it bothers people like you.

Interestingly, if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you. Have you no self respect? Faggot, faggot, faggot.
#58 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I'm not a liberal.

And your comments are starting to read like an example of Poe's law. "if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you." This is b8 if i ever saw it.

My point about gun culture, is that if there is ever a group which will hurt gun rights going forward it is gun culture. The shit they try to get away with will earn pushback.
#64 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
User avatar #42 - drldrl (12/11/2014) [-]
Well then actually say what you mean instead of generalized statements.

Also, Branas is a doctor. Don't think he's qualified to be examining this.
#39 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
LOL! I was going to say something similar, but then I thought the point bobbysnobby made was so stupid that it didn't really deserve a response. I mean, this guy's already a little slow. So, I went a little easy on him.
#36 - anonymous (12/11/2014) [-]
Bullsh*t. Automatic weapons have been outlawed except for a very few cases since 1934. There's no way to skirt that law--spirit or otherwise. You are one of those typical liberals that are just scared of guns and the "gun culture" (LOL!) because you know nothing about it. You see a laser sight and a collapsible stock on a black riffle and you reflexively clutch your pearls. "It's...like...all black and stuff. Why do they have to skirt laws to get these scawwwyyy weapons of mass destruction into the hands of toddlers? Why do they even need that? Damn you NRA!" My rights aren't up for debate. F*ck off.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 160 / Total items point value: 1820

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)