x
Click to expand

duudegladiator

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:5/02/2012
Last Login:3/31/2015
Location:Your vagina
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2593
Highest Content Rank:#3741
Highest Comment Rank:#1513
Content Thumbs: 760 total,  861 ,  101
Comment Thumbs: 8154 total,  11477 ,  3323
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 75 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 76 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 275 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 276 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:0
Content Views:46432
Times Content Favorited:33 times
Total Comments Made:2947
FJ Points:9321

latest user's comments

#125 - MFW im pro Open Carry, and read the comments. Eurofa…  [+] (40 new replies) 06/12/2014 on don't be a pleb -32
#825 - newdevyx (06/13/2014) [-]
People comparing US to Europe.
#445 - lihborg (06/12/2014) [-]
oh yes it must suck knowing our kids can safely walk around school, shops etc knowing they wont be victims of some douchedick who lost his mind, found his daddys gun and killed 15 people just because some bitch wouldnt give him a handy in the bathrooms... oh man fuck you.
#522 - puttman (06/12/2014) [-]
douchedick lost his mind, thats a mental health issue not gun
grabbed his dads guns thats a parental issue
wouldnt get a handy uhhhhh personal issue?
ya its sucks that he decided to take a gun and use it in this manner but getting rid of the gun wont get rid of the douchedick, the bad parents, and and those stuck up no handies bitches, come on give a brother a hand
#382 - anonymous (06/12/2014) [-]
no thanks, our penises are adequate, no need for extensions.
#126 - comradewinter (06/12/2014) [-]
I like our crime rate where it is now; better than yours.
#988 - anonymous (06/14/2014) [-]
I was going to post a very long, well cited counterargument and then I realized that you aren't worth the time. Felt it'd be a waste to close this window without calling you a faggot, though.

Faggot.
#989 - comradewinter (06/14/2014) [-]
Actually, you were looking up sources to prove me wrong, only to realize I was right
User avatar #937 - formerlvtwoeight (06/13/2014) [-]
Yeah but you don't have to worry about niggers
#942 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
Gypsies and Middle Easterners make up for that.
User avatar #943 - formerlvtwoeight (06/13/2014) [-]
True
#890 - anonymous (06/13/2014) [-]
More gun control doesn't equal more crime. Try again: theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
User avatar #889 - durkadurka (06/13/2014) [-]
Because surely that difference is caused by firearms. When people don't have firearms, they just become less violent.
#895 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
It's easier to kill someone by pulling a trigger rather than beating someone repatedly with your bloodied fists. The US has a higher murder rate than any other country of the same standards, and by a large margin. And don't mention socio-economical situation, even countries with worse economy have better statistics.
User avatar #900 - durkadurka (06/13/2014) [-]
Murder rate is different than crime rate. I'd also argue that American culture is more violent.
#871 - swagbot (06/13/2014) [-]
Last I heard, Britain's Violent Crime Rate was FOUR TIMES that of the United States.

Get in reality, dumb-fuck.
#879 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
A violent crime in the UK also involves carrying sharp objects, so it's no big surprise.
#906 - swagbot (06/13/2014) [-]
Ahh, nevermind my comment.

If we had pure statistics, this conversation would be easily settled one way or another.

Our bureaucrats who direct governmental statistics agencies always have an axe to grind, so we're never gonna get straight answer anyways.

Because of that, I just think about which paradigm makes the most sense to me:

> Criminals Don't follow Law.
> Normal Citizens Do Follow laws.
> A Law is enacted to make gun possession a crime
> Normal citizens will disarm, following said Law. They will now have no guns.
> Criminals will not disarm, disobeying said law. They will still have guns.
> Now we have a situation where criminals have guns, and Normal Citizens do not.

None of you anti-gun people have EVER refuted this SIMPLE argument.
You, comradewinter, are welcome to try...
... but if you cannot, please just entertain the mere *possibility* that your anti-gun paradigm is poorly-reasoned.
#935 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
2/3 murders in the US are second-degree, hence on impulse. Most of these by citizens. What you don't see, which is painful to watch, is that you classify people as "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals". What makes you a criminal? Breaking the law? Making a living off crime? By definition, a criminal is someone who has commited a crime. Doesn't matter if you steal an apple or blow up a subway station, both would be criminals.

Assuming you mean people who make their living through criminal actions, they still don't make up for much. They tend to be involved in other crimes such as drug trade, prostitution and other gang activity. The bulk of the murders come straight from your normal citizens. They get pissed off at something, remember they have a gun somewhere, and go nuts. First degree murders, which are preplanned murders, are pretty rare because most people cool down after a while. That's also why there's a 15 day waiting period for a handgun, so you won't just drop by the store if you feel angry.

So there you have it. Murderers are people too, with problems that may cause them to murder out of desperation. Criminals by trade won't give up their guns, but how many of those do you find in respectable streets? Don't assume just because someone follows the law they are unwilling to kill if under hard weather.
#949 - swagbot (06/13/2014) [-]
You've thought about this, but I feel not deeply enough:

... and you're falling for the Media's propaganda effort to paint a picture that the world is cracking in half, and that Normal People are gunning eachother down in the streets. There are a lot more good people in this world than we give our Race credit for... they're just fragmented and confused.

> Out of that 2/3 that you mentioned, how many of those are with guns?
> How many of those are committed by people with a Criminal Record (and thus are the sort of ne'er-do-wells that would refuse a disarmament law anyways)?
> Comparatively, how many crimes are PREVENTED by guns every year? (Hint: it's tens-of-thousands in the U.S., far more than the number of murders committed with them. Sauce if you want.

And anyways, your whole argument comes back on itself at some point:

Okay fine - say all of these 'not-professional-criminals-but-still-unstable-people' give up their guns... and all the TRULY good people give up THEIR guns as well.... (And the Criminals don't)...

Say a Criminal or a Crazy-Normal person goes to assault one of the 'Truly Good' citizens...

> Back in the Era of Guns, the Aggressor would have thought twice about that action if they knew that there was a change that the 'Good' Person was armed, and that their moment of passion could very well cost their life... even if they had a gun as well!

> However, now that nobody has guns, the 'Barrier to Entry' for that crime is lowered, now that the criminal knows he'll only be dealing with fists at the worst. Thus, you get more rapes, muggins, etc.
#953 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
So picture me this: How does the US have better socio-economics than other countries, yet they have far more crime? Only difference are the gun laws. Some other minor factors as well, but it all boils down to availability of weapons.

>The majority. Killing someone on the spot requires some sort of way of doing it. You could always stab them, but there's at least a better chance to escape. Like I said, it's easier to pull out a gun and pull a trigger.

>Most people have some sort of criminal record, but most don't commit crimes that make you serve time. Unpaid bills can be a factor. And most murders that are non-gang activity are done by ordinary people, as you call them. If you judge someone by their ability to accept a disarmament, most of the US can be seen as ne'er-do-wells.

>Crimes may be prevented, but also solved. If someone tries to rob a store you can pull out a gun to stop him, but when the perpetrator is eventually caught, you are equally back to square one. Crime happens in Europe too, but the cases are solved and money + reparation is returned.

And if your country is as laughable as saying people don't have compassion, the country itself is worse than Uganda. Of course it makes things easier, but what are the odds that someone would walk up to you with a gun in the middle of the street and rob you? If your country is that dense and cruel, you really are the laughing stock of the world. Europe does well without guns. Asia does well without guns. Oceania does well without guns. Africa and South America are run by criminals, and giving carry permits there would just lead to more militias seeking power. And lots of countries in these continents still have fewer murders.
#956 - swagbot (06/13/2014) [-]
> I never claimed the U.S. has better 'socio-economic'. I don't even know what part of the discussion you're referring to there.

> I don't understand what your first bullet point is saying, or how it relates to our discussion.

> Ditto on your second bullet point.

> Ditto your third bullet point.

"...what are the odds that someone would walk up to you with a gun in the middle of the street and rob you?"
- In places like New York and Chicago, with restrictive gun laws, these crimes are reasonably common. Not nearly as much in gun-carrying localities.

"Europe does well without guns."
Yes... the last century can certainly attest to this fact (heavy sarcasm).

"... and South America are run by criminals."
Funny you mention South America - have you heard that Mexican Villages are violating Anti-Gun laws, and arming themselves and successfully DRIVING DRUG CARTELS OUT OF TOWN!?! Look it up.
#957 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
Socio-economics are always taken into account by pro-guns. If you don't think that is the case, you might as well worry about why every civilized continent has a better crime rate than yours.

You are really dense if you don't see my bullet points being replies to yours. But I guess some people don't pay attention to their own writing.

Getting robbed in the middle of the streets means you have a problem bigger than war-ridden zones in Africa. Which I doubt.

Guns are pretty useless when your city gets bombed to pieces and untrained peasants march into battle and die against trained soldiers. Civilians in war times are best at supplying soldiers. But the US will never know that, because since 1776 they've won 3 wars: 2 in which they contributed to some extent, but not decisively, and the civil war. But that doesn't count, because you lost it too. The US has never been invaded before, yet you continue with your wishful thinking that every proud American patriot will fight together against the enemy, yet natural disasters like hurricanes show they are more likely to loot every shop with a smashed window. Classic.

Everybody knows there are villages in Mexico taking a stand. Usually involves taking down some crime rings, but none of the fully fledged cartels. The Zetas, Sineloas, Knights Templars and Gulfs are all major operations that have villages dedicated to themselves. They are also untouchable. In addition, the Templars are confirmed to have people on the inside of the militias, smuggling retrieved illegal goods and warning about possible attacks, as well as persuading them to attack rival cartels. So maybe they run some small timers out, but they also supply the cartels with firepower and other services, without even knowing it.
#970 - swagbot (06/13/2014) [-]
Yeah, this is a religion for you. There's no point is even discussing.

I just hope for you sake to regrow your balls and your brains before it's too late.

But no - you probably won't, and will get plowed under with all the rest of the dense plebs throughout history.

I'm done. Don't even bother replying.
#974 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
#771 - anonymous (06/12/2014) [-]
bullshit you just have good control over your media, we know all about your bloody knife slaying and butcherings and people killing each other over sports so yeah, you're full of shit.
#779 - comradewinter (06/13/2014) [-]
You really make a shame out of every pro-open carry.
#770 - notstill (06/12/2014) [-]
Fucking black people
User avatar #131 - poeci (06/12/2014) [-]
he's just trolling, there's nothing good about their level
User avatar #128 - duudegladiator (06/12/2014) [-]
Violent Crimes? Such as burglery and such, when you take New York and Detroit out of the U.S. Statistics, BTW i hate the way we meld the whole US into one stat. Our crime rate instantly drops.
User avatar #155 - satansferret (06/12/2014) [-]
Flint's worse than Detroit by quite a bit now btw. Still both in Mi though.
#139 - comradewinter (06/12/2014) [-]
European crime rate is still better. And should that change, we can equally remove some Balkan countries. Keep in mind that the US is a country, while Europe is a continent.

The state with the lowest murder rate is New Hampshire by 1.1. In comparison, the UK has 1.0, the Netherlands has 0.9, Germany 0.8, and Spain 0.8. In fact, most high standard European countries can best this. And the US nationwide murder rate is 4.8. The only European countries with a worse murder rate are Estonia (5.0), Albania (5.0), and Belarus (5.1). Belarus being the highest in Europe, it's easily dwarfed by Lousiana, having 10.8, more than the double.
User avatar #190 - playerdous (06/12/2014) [-]
Russia is 9.2, that's the worst I could find for Europe.

In general Europe has a 3.0 and North America is 4.2. I figure this works as a better comparison than just U.S. to all of Europe.

At least we can all rest happy knowing that were not Honduras 90.4.
User avatar #471 - vohcaz (06/12/2014) [-]
Russia isn't Europe though.
User avatar #627 - thewulfman (06/12/2014) [-]
The heavily populated parts of Russia are.
User avatar #714 - vohcaz (06/12/2014) [-]
I guess that's true, but i really don't think it should be counted when only part of the country is there, but the statistic is to represent the entire country.
User avatar #763 - thewulfman (06/12/2014) [-]
Then only count the parts of Russia in Europe then. Still gonna have the same result pretty much.
#755 - powmonkey (06/12/2014) [-]
Gee, kinda sounds like the same situation with America, huh?
#329 - comradewinter (06/12/2014) [-]
Saw it now. Makes more sense, I couldn't quite figure out how a corrupt country like that could beat Estonia.

Still, people refer to Russia as a criminal shithole. And then there's a state in the US with more murders. Surprising to see is also that Michigan, which has Detroit, is 4th in the US.
#149 - comradewinter has deleted their comment.
#12 - Your one of THOSE people. "Oh, America STOLE th…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/12/2014 on Muslim things -1
#13 - MrShaggy (06/12/2014) [-]
YOU'RE one of those people.

It's a fucking quote referring to the dumbass 'seems like justice' sentence, & you derive all that bullshit from it ?

Your logic is subpar; during that time, New York was already a trade route before being 'bought'
#9 - Calling me basic Since when is Mecca "s…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/12/2014 on Muslim things 0
#11 - MrShaggy (06/12/2014) [-]
> 9/11
> New York City

'There could never really be justice on stolen land.'

So basic
#12 - duudegladiator (06/12/2014) [-]
Your one of THOSE people.

"Oh, America STOLE their land from the Native Americans! We should give the land back!!!!!!!! #YoloSwag #DoSomethingAboutIt"

Too bad during that time, New York was both sold and colonized. The Natives sold most of New York in a crude deal mind you. But a deal none-the-less.
#13 - MrShaggy (06/12/2014) [-]
YOU'RE one of those people.

It's a fucking quote referring to the dumbass 'seems like justice' sentence, & you derive all that bullshit from it ?

Your logic is subpar; during that time, New York was already a trade route before being 'bought'
#8 - Thats what i thought. 06/12/2014 on Muslim things 0
#4 - Seems like justice....  [+] (7 new replies) 06/12/2014 on Muslim things 0
#5 - MrShaggy (06/12/2014) [-]
There could never really be justice on stolen land.
#9 - duudegladiator (06/12/2014) [-]
Calling me basic

Since when is Mecca "stolen land" Im Catholic, but Mecca was the birthplace of Islam's structure
#11 - MrShaggy (06/12/2014) [-]
> 9/11
> New York City

'There could never really be justice on stolen land.'

So basic
#12 - duudegladiator (06/12/2014) [-]
Your one of THOSE people.

"Oh, America STOLE their land from the Native Americans! We should give the land back!!!!!!!! #YoloSwag #DoSomethingAboutIt"

Too bad during that time, New York was both sold and colonized. The Natives sold most of New York in a crude deal mind you. But a deal none-the-less.
#13 - MrShaggy (06/12/2014) [-]
YOU'RE one of those people.

It's a fucking quote referring to the dumbass 'seems like justice' sentence, & you derive all that bullshit from it ?

Your logic is subpar; during that time, New York was already a trade route before being 'bought'
User avatar #7 - kungfufun (06/12/2014) [-]
stolen land ?
#8 - duudegladiator (06/12/2014) [-]
Thats what i thought.
#2033 - **duudegladiator rolled image ** 06/02/2014 on Admin is going to ban you -1
#1 - Instantly thought of Civ 5. 05/30/2014 on Cut Backs are Getting Real +2
#5 - "Gun laws Questioned" Appareantly, my Right…  [+] (50 new replies) 05/30/2014 on Sandy Hook Effect +39
#47 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
Registering your weapons isn't an infringement upon your rights.

Furthermore not all nations have it as a right, and it would fall under a law. There are mass shootings elsewhere.
#70 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
What good would registration do? I'm seriously curious. Would it stop people from dying? Are guns less lethal if they're registered? Would there be even a single less fatality from guns?

What's going to happen here, specifically?
#127 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
See below. Also fuck you and fuck your MUH GUNS attitude. Children don't deserve firearms.
#133 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Who's advocated children having firearms?

Why are you so angry? Is it because you don't have any rational reason to be against guns, so you're lashing out in hysterics so as to intimidate your opponents?

Why are leftists so emotionally unstable?
User avatar #135 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
Now I'm a leftist. Two things:

You're the child in question.
I own firearms myself.
#136 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Why am I a child again? Because I asked what good registering guns would do?
User avatar #139 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
Like I said before:

funnyjunk.com/Sandy+Hook+Effect/funny-pictures/5165033/126#126

On the same vine why were the parents of the columbine shooters not punished? Their irresponsibility is the only reason that happened.
#144 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
You didn't say that to me, you said that to someone else. And then you lashed out at me in your anger because I didn't follow your conversation with someone else.

You're mentally unstable. Give your guns to someone else, you're a danger to yourself and others.
User avatar #147 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
I lashed out in anger? That's hilarious! And you're just the almighty paragon of serenity? Regular Gandhi that never said or did anything bad during this conversation! Look in a mirror before you judge others broski
#148 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Would you like to provide me with such a time?
#80 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
Well lessee here...gun registered to you is a 9mm...crime committed with a 9 mm...well we know everyone who owns one of those. Lets go match the fucking ballistics and nail someone's balls to the wall because they have the gun which was used in this crime.
#82 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
So there would be no fewer deaths?
#93 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
fewer deaths because people are more likely to be caught and convicted.
#106 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Which would do nothing to stop mass killings because they're all done by people who want the recognition.

Gun registration wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook or any of the other mass killings.
#118 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
very true...but it would be effective in other instances where people are not willing to get caught because they know they can't get away with it.

Also you are proving the point that registration isn't enough and there needs to be more gun control in addition to a reform of mental health programs for early identification and treatment of potential shooters. Thanks for that.
#121 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm certainly okay with discrediting the notion of registration as anything important or valuable. I think it's a horrible idea with no benefits.

But I have done nothing to prove that we need more gun control or that we need any changes to mental health programs. I haven't said anything about them, so it is your bias that is saying we need them.
#124 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
By stating that registration would do nothing to stop the mass shootings and continuing to press the issue of how registration would be useful you force the implication of the need for some solution to the issue. I have thus presented the solution as using registration to dissuade people from committing common crimes with guns as they could be more easily identified through the registration system and applying additional restrictions on the sale of firearms whilst concurrently restructuring the mental health institutions to identify and potentially treat those who are possible future mass shooters.
#125 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Or we could just stop limiting where people can take their guns.

Fun fact, most mass killings happen in "gun free zones." So, if we got rid of the gun free zones, maybe we'd have fewer mass killings or, at the very least, fewer deaths from mass killings.

www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

Now, we don't agree on gun control, but we do agree that the mental health system in America is borked. I suggest we set aside the gun issue and work together to sort out the mental health system. Fair compromise?
User avatar #128 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
You fucking dense twat, a gun free zone is not meant as a deterrent. Should something happen in such a zone (Like a school) and they capture the bastard they may levy additional punishment upon them. NO ONE thinks it'll stop someone, just another legal means to punish a criminal.
#132 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Wow. That was unnecessarily harsh.

So, you create a special place where people aren't able to defend themselves against criminals so that you can charge criminals for more crimes. Then you say that I'm the stupid one for wanting people to be able to defend themselves.

You're aware there's no worse crime than murder, correct? And adding on a victimless crime like carrying a gun isn't going to do anything but target people that follow the law, yes?

Why not just hand ex-convicts a shotgun on their way out of prison and point them to the closest unarmed person? It'll be faster that way.
User avatar #134 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
You speed, carry drugs, or other contraband in a school zone the penalty is a lot harsher. It is a standard affair you'll see in many states. Same rules apply.
#137 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Restrictions on speeding doesn't give criminals a place to go to murder people. Having a restriction on where you can carry guns does.
#140 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
I'll explain it slowly:

A man commits a crime, not even necessarily related to anything involving guns. The Police catch the bastard, he's searched, he has a concealed weapon, and happens to be in a no firearm zone. On top of his original charges, he will be charged for having a weapon in that zone. It's a legal means for harsher punishment.

Nongovernmental: In states that have carry laws, a business may put up a sign stating they do not allow firearms on their premise. If having the firearm would not present a danger to the public or the owners of the establishment if it was discharged, they cannot bring criminal charges on that individual. However if they ask them to leave and they do not comply, they could call the police and say: We do not allow firearms in this place of business, he brought one, won't leave when we told him, we even pointed out the sign. In that instance they could be made to vacate.

Stop being an idiot.
#143 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
You're such an angry, vile person. Seriously, you should get help if someone asking you a question makes you so hateful. Constantly badgering a person because of a question? You shouldn't own guns, you're going to end up hurting someone. Seek help.

Your point, however, is absolutely without merit. Why in the world should we care if someone carries a gun on school grounds? Does the mere fact that it's a gun mean that someone is going to get hurt by it? Are you, for example, capable of carrying a gun onto school property without murdering someone? I know that's a hard example because you're so belligerent and mentally unstable, but I have faith that even you, with your clear anger issues, can manage to not murder someone.

Let's say a criminal is doing criminal things on school grounds. Why do we need further statutes with which to punish them? What possible good would that do? You're punishing people for something that isn't hurting anyone.

Let's go further, though. Let's say you find a criminal doing criminal things and he wants to hurt someone on school grounds. Great, arrest them for that! There's no need to make more laws saying you can't do stuff. Why not just say that the US is a crime free zone and anyone caught committing crimes can therefore be punished even more severely because this is a crime free zone!

Why not? Because it's stupid, that's why not. You're painting a bulls-eye on every gun free zone, telling anyone that wants to hurt people that these people can't fight back.

I'm going to reiterate my last point because it's so important. Get help. You're lashing out in anger over precisely nothing. You're belligerent and you need help.
User avatar #157 - cactaur (05/31/2014) [-]
You do know he dosn't care about the argument, right? He's just doing this for fun.
#159 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm doing this for fun, too. Honestly, though, I'm running low on "willingness to deal with anti-social belligerent leftists" so I think I'm gonna call it quits. He has no argument, he just likes throwing temper tantrums. That's why I keep calling him sick. Because he's sick.
User avatar #161 - cactaur (05/31/2014) [-]
From the sound of the arguments i wouldn't call this fun, stimulating yes but not fun.
#163 - daddycool (05/31/2014) [-]
Talking about politics is, to me, fun. But I'm excessively boring.

The only real problem I run into is that I have a low tolerance for stupid. In cases like these, it's easy to dismantle his argument and make him look like a deranged lunatic while I do so(which he is, so I'm telling the truth the whole time).
#138 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
You cannot even understand a simple comparison, and you think you're qualified to own firearms?
#78 - swagbot (05/31/2014) [-]
Still waitin' for that reply, dwarfman.

Nah... nah, see...

...there is no good reply. Because your opinion is bad and daddycool here just pointed out the massive flaw in your argument.

Discard your shitty paradigms and pick up better ones, please.
#126 - dwarfman (05/31/2014) [-]
I am right because I declare I am right. Also buddy it's 3:00am, I actually went to bed and woke up already so go change your panties.

Why do I want registration? If you have a mentally unstable dude living with you (Like the perpetrator behind Sandy Hook) you don't get to own weapons. Oh but my poor boy is just misunderstood he'd never hurt any one. The irresponsibility of the parents end up getting people killed, so yes it'd prevent it.

I'll use an even more local example, you can go over the Ben Franklin bridge into Philly and purchase a gun rather easily, drive back to Camden and shoot a nigger, get away scot free. The gun shops in Philly pissed the bed when the city wanted to stop this, went to the state legislature, cried their eyes out and nothing got done about it.

I own three handguns, and a rifle (M3 Carbine). Inherited two, bought the original because some bastard broke into my house. All registered, and I didn't say fucking boo about it. Take your Don't Tread on me flag, stuff it up your ass stick included and pull it out your mouth and taste the shit you're spewing.
#178 - swagbot (05/31/2014) [-]
This is the most substantive post you're posted yet... finally something we can have an actually discussion about:

This is very simple:
> Bad People will always Exist.
> The Only way to deal with Bad People is through Force.
> If you take away all the guns from citizens...
1) If a Bad Person does something, the police will always be 30 minutes.. the crime will already be done.
2) If that Bad Person IS the government, god forbid... well, they have all the guns, and the Normal Citizens are shit-out-of-luck, huh?

Focusing on Guns is not identifying the Root of the Problem - the Root of the Problem is BAD PEOPLE.

If we had MORE GUNS, and GOOD people USED them more (past and present), we wouldn't be in this situation (bunch of bad people floating around fucking shit up for the rest of us) in the first place.

Get it?

Seriously... am i missing something here? If so... what am i missing?

Skype if we're gonna talk more... I'm tired of typing out these huge replies and having them shit all over.
#81 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
fuck off mate. go back to fucking your sister and leave the computer alone.
#85 - swagbot (05/31/2014) [-]
Like a cornered rat...

Anon filth, not even worth my fucking time.
#94 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
and yet it keeps replying to the comments.
#49 - dangler (05/31/2014) [-]
Your image and your comment do not match at all
#43 - dwarfman has deleted their comment.
User avatar #40 - subtard (05/31/2014) [-]
There are laws regulating guns which are being questioned.
Nobody is banning the right to own guns.
User avatar #10 - gadgetzan (05/30/2014) [-]
If one of your rights was to randomly kill people of your choosing, would you still defend it? Just because it was put on paper 200 years ago doesn't mean it's a good idea
#86 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
you are thinking of duelling which was legal and was made illegal..
User avatar #23 - citruslord (05/31/2014) [-]
Except that would be completely and nonnegotiaby immoral. The bill of rights is still in place, and the right to bear arms is, I believe, to be completely necessary. You wouldn't ban steak because a baby can't chew it, the actions of a small percentage of gun owners shouldn't cause the rest to suffer.
Also, what makes you think someone who is messed up enough to shoot and kill multiple innocent people would obey gun laws?
#84 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
the guy in california who bought all his guns legally before going on a shooting spree.
User avatar #108 - citruslord (05/31/2014) [-]
I really don't think that you can be mentally stable and go on a killing spree. There should be some more strict guidelines, but they should never be banned outright.
User avatar #26 - crazan (05/31/2014) [-]
I believe the second amendment, the right to bear arms, was only necessary at the time of the creation of the bill of rights and as such should not apply to modern times. Many negative things come from the second amendment, such as the prominent amount of killings with guns in America.
User avatar #30 - citruslord (05/31/2014) [-]
Call me paranoid, but I don't believe I want the government disarming the people at a time when the government is treading over much of the constitution and spying on them. You place too much trust in them if you believe they are the only people who should have access to firearms.
And like I said, bad people will exist, and they will find ways to get guns.
User avatar #33 - crazan (05/31/2014) [-]
Yes, but by making it possible to reduce the amount of guns available, people will not be able to use guns as much. Take Australia for example, gun violence is pretty rare there, and that is because of the strict gun laws they have in place. I agree that there are always bad people around in this world, but if you can take away the weapon which many bad people can get, the violence will decrease. The only purpose of having a gun is to kill people
#83 - swagbot (05/31/2014) [-]
In Australia....

VIOLENT CRIME RATES INCREASED DRAMATICALLY AFTER THE 90s gun laws went into effect.

... same thing in Britain... YES, true, Britain has basically NO gun crimes... but they have FOUR TIMES the Violent Crimes rate than the U.S.! (easy statistics to find, look it up)

Your ideas are bad. They are simple-minded and poor.

I'm not gonna type anymore - Skype me if you want.
#36 - anonymous (05/31/2014) [-]
"There will always be bad people": if guns are gotten rid of, then they have to use weapons that are less harmful (individually stabbing vs spraying a crowd)...

But: like prohibition, difficult to make something with an industry set up around it disappear and, in this case, it is killing instruments, so inherently dangerous.

Yeah.
User avatar #37 - crazan (05/31/2014) [-]
At least more precautions would reduce the issue, and has been proven to work like that as well. Many mass murders and killings would not have happened if it were more difficult to get guns.
User avatar #48 - citruslord (05/31/2014) [-]
I fully support just general mental health reforms in the US. It has been mostly ignored, and with the prison culture and media focus on death, it exacerbates the issue. As far as I know, no other nations media puts such a heavy focus on death, death, and more death. Media's coverage of tragedies should be limited, people like Rodger should be watched when they are noticed to have mental issues, like he was, and taken care of accordingly.
As it is, the US is much more content to let mentally unstable people do crime, then imprison them, instead of preventing it.
#2 - Picture 05/30/2014 on Bye son! +14
#5 - Big Brother turns into Monitor Mom. 05/30/2014 on Monitored by Aircraft +2
#2 - Thats just too much. **** .  [+] (1 new reply) 05/28/2014 on Non-crooked priorities 0
User avatar #7 - lavitts (05/28/2014) [-]
It's never enough.
#12 - My dog is old, now im crying holding her. Screw you … 05/27/2014 on It’s okay, pooch, it’s... +1
#13 - Sure, it would be expensive to install, but looking at 10-20 y… 05/27/2014 on IT MADE IT'S GOAL PEOPLE! 0
#3 - Pretty sure that is a complete lie.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/27/2014 on IT MADE IT'S GOAL PEOPLE! +9
#12 - slias (05/27/2014) [-]
Oh yeah, that guy's completely wrong. But still, it'd be really fucking expensive to pull this off.
User avatar #13 - duudegladiator (05/27/2014) [-]
Sure, it would be expensive to install, but looking at 10-20 years i'd say the roads begin to pay for themselves, especially how they put the power lines underground and out of Hurricanes/Tornadoes/etc's way.
#6 - Thats all Barrack is. A Comedian. Isnt good for any… 05/22/2014 on Comedian Barack Obama -6
#4 - Sigh, thought that it was going to end comically.. … 05/20/2014 on Your wife rides my Jambo... -2
#2 - MFW im in college and work at McDonalds. Im qu… 05/20/2014 on College in Murica 0
#2 - I want this shed!!!! Need a real damn job and home first.. 05/19/2014 on An Oldy Buy A Goody 0
#6 - Now i just KNOW that i am small. Thanks. 05/19/2014 on Voyager approaching Jupiter... +4
#57 - The "Confederate Flag" Dixie Flag was adopt…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/16/2014 on That is so painfully Southern +31
User avatar #275 - meganinja (05/16/2014) [-]
>implying anything but the Army of Northern Virginia was worth anything
User avatar #286 - sspacecore (05/16/2014) [-]
Are you seriously trying to imply that the people and cities south of the border between the USA and CSA where worth nothing?
User avatar #287 - meganinja (05/16/2014) [-]
What? Everything is south of the border between the USA and CSA
User avatar #288 - sspacecore (05/16/2014) [-]
During the civil war, the USA and the CSA shared a border, south of that border was the CSA, and north of it was the USA.
User avatar #289 - meganinja (05/16/2014) [-]
yes, that's obvious. are YOU trying to imply everybody in the confederacy were worth nothing?
User avatar #290 - sspacecore (05/16/2014) [-]
No, reread my first comment.
User avatar #300 - meganinja (05/17/2014) [-]
Well you said it in a pretty stupid way tbh. General Lee's army probably has the best track record for fighting during the war.
#43 - Confederate Flag.... Its the Dixie Flag.  [+] (12 new replies) 05/16/2014 on That is so painfully Southern -3
#107 - anonymous (05/16/2014) [-]
dicks e-flag?
#106 - anonymous (05/16/2014) [-]
same fucking thing you buttfucking retard.
User avatar #63 - Awesomenessniss (05/16/2014) [-]
It's the flag most recognised with the Confederacy due to it being used as a primary battle flag. I think in the modern age it is actually the best flag to represent the Confederacy as the only other ones that could be used are the actual "national" flag which looks like the flags of many other countries, and the other one which has the Dixie flag in the corner and a big white field that confused everyone on the battlefield.
#54 - anonymous (05/16/2014) [-]
#57 - duudegladiator (05/16/2014) [-]
The "Confederate Flag" Dixie Flag was adopted by the Confed. Army of Virginia because they did not have one.

This flag, was not the original flag, thus it is not the "real" one.
User avatar #275 - meganinja (05/16/2014) [-]
>implying anything but the Army of Northern Virginia was worth anything
User avatar #286 - sspacecore (05/16/2014) [-]
Are you seriously trying to imply that the people and cities south of the border between the USA and CSA where worth nothing?
User avatar #287 - meganinja (05/16/2014) [-]
What? Everything is south of the border between the USA and CSA
User avatar #288 - sspacecore (05/16/2014) [-]
During the civil war, the USA and the CSA shared a border, south of that border was the CSA, and north of it was the USA.
User avatar #289 - meganinja (05/16/2014) [-]
yes, that's obvious. are YOU trying to imply everybody in the confederacy were worth nothing?
User avatar #290 - sspacecore (05/16/2014) [-]
No, reread my first comment.
User avatar #300 - meganinja (05/17/2014) [-]
Well you said it in a pretty stupid way tbh. General Lee's army probably has the best track record for fighting during the war.
#9 - Just fell out of the Orbit due to lack of gravitational pull. 05/14/2014 on You Can Overdo Anything 0
#5 - Secret fetish REVEALED! What move shall you make? … 05/13/2014 on Surprise +5
#5 - America? MAKE money? No way, its gonna get ****** up so… 05/10/2014 on russia stop 0
#61 - ...Implying it isn't? Taiwan is formally known as th… 05/09/2014 on Badass Mr. Putin… -2

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2200
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #15 - thejokerhatesyou (08/25/2012) [-]
**thejokerhatesyou rolls 3**
User avatar #22 to #1 - melwach (02/21/2013) [-]
Can I see you at the olympics 2016?
User avatar #23 to #22 - duudegladiator (02/21/2013) [-]
Sure. Representing the non-fat Americans. xD
User avatar #21 to #1 - duudegladiator (09/29/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 7**
User avatar #20 to #1 - duudegladiator (09/29/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 7**
User avatar #19 to #1 - duudegladiator (09/29/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 3**
User avatar #18 to #1 - duudegladiator (09/29/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 6**
User avatar #16 to #1 - duudegladiator (09/29/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 8**
User avatar #8 to #1 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 7**
User avatar #9 to #8 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 5**
User avatar #10 to #9 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 5**
User avatar #11 to #10 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 8**
User avatar #12 to #11 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 1**
User avatar #13 to #12 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 4**
User avatar #14 to #13 - duudegladiator (08/14/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 9**
User avatar #7 to #1 - duudegladiator (07/23/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 6**
User avatar #6 to #1 - duudegladiator (07/17/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 6**
User avatar #5 to #1 - duudegladiator (07/17/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 4**
User avatar #4 to #1 - duudegladiator (07/17/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 6**
User avatar #3 to #1 - duudegladiator (07/17/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 5**
User avatar #2 to #1 - duudegladiator (07/17/2012) [-]
**duudegladiator rolls 1**
 Friends (0)