Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/20/2011
Last Login:10/20/2016
Content Ranking:#750
Comment Ranking:#13884
Highest Content Rank:#747
Highest Comment Rank:#1351
Content Thumbs: 5181 total,  5889 ,  708
Comment Thumbs: 5356 total,  6208 ,  852
Content Level Progress: 13% (13/100)
Level 145 Content: Faptastic → Level 146 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 46% (46/100)
Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
Content Views:214561
Times Content Favorited:242 times
Total Comments Made:1115
FJ Points:9799

latest user's comments

#88 - what was his plan in the first place??  [+] (1 reply) 04/25/2014 on firedance +3
#100 - catburglarpenis (04/25/2014) [-]
Kill all the Jews.

That's really everyone's first plan, amirite guys?
#241722 - Picture  [+] (1 reply) 04/24/2014 on TINDER DATE WITH ADMIN +1
User avatar
#241783 - madlh (04/24/2014) [-]
Autism Intensifies
#4 - why is it a felony?  [+] (47 replies) 04/23/2014 on K humor +1
User avatar
#5 - roliga (04/23/2014) [-]
It legally classify the weapon as an SBR (short barreled rifle). In the US a rifle must have a barrel length of 16 inches and an overall length of 26 inches or else it will require a $200 tax stamp, registration, photo ID, and several months of paperwork.

Stupid as fuck laws that are in place because of NFA bullshit, because apparently a rifle with a 15 inch barrel as apposed to a 16 inch barrel is ten billion times more dangerous...
User avatar
#26 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
sure, so where should we draw the line? Going 66 mph isn't 10X more dangerous than 65 but, you know, laws n shit.
User avatar
#41 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Speed of a car is something that actually should be regulated, regulating barrel length doesnt make anyone safer, its just harassing law abiding gun owners.
User avatar
#44 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
Well it sounds like the option is either you heavily regulate certain limits, regulate everything, or regulate nothing. I'd prefer option B but everyone who enjoys owning firearms seems to be clamoring for C as the only possible decent option.
User avatar
#46 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Probably because they tried C, it worked, then they tried A and B and they both made everything worse.
User avatar
#48 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
When and where did they try C? B seems to work pretty well in places like Switz, Israel, and Australia.
User avatar
#58 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
From the 40's to 1984, gun laws were extremely loose, gun crime was down, almost no gun violence, then gun laws started getting tighter, the tighter gun laws got the more gangs got guns, the less law abiding people could defend themselves.

Take a loot at Chicago, extremely tight gun laws, on par with a lot of European countries, it also is the state with the most gun violence in America. Then look at a place like Maine, loosest gun laws in America and was named the safest state to live in a few years ago.

The reason tight gun laws work in other countries is because guns were never popular there, in America firearms are an extremely cultural thing to most people, and were stated in our constitution that people can shall not be barred from ownership of a gun, be it to put food on the table for their family, defend themselves from a home intruder, or fight against a tyrannical government (and as crazy as that last one sounds, it recently happened in Nevada, armed civilians forced the federal government to back down and retreat when they tried to steal a mans land from him)
User avatar
#81 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
woah, The constitution is pretty clear the right to bear arms is intended to secure a well-regulated militia. Your final statement is a gross misreading of the events in Nevada. You stop paying and stop obeying the law you are going to end up in trouble with authorities. It's ludicrous to expect otherwise unless, apparently, you reject the existence of the federal government yet worship the constitution and the american flag. If the countryside had stronger gun control laws illegal weapons wouldn't be smuggled into the city. I respect the rights of collectors and hunters and the people to seek protection but innocent bystanders and people who don't like guns and don't hunt have rights as well. The rise of gang violence and gang culture isn't the result of inner city gun control. It's the result of post-war increases in population and the mass incarceration of minorities faced with the aryan brotherhood and the cold war between the Hells Angels and the italian mob.
User avatar
#134 - iamkagji (04/25/2014) [-]
Dude... A militia by definition cannot be regulated by the government. That would be an army, there's a difference. Self-regulating gun owners ARE a well-regulated militia.
#115 - funlovincannibal (04/25/2014) [-]
Seriously? What is this bullshit about cold wars and aryan brotherhood? The brotherhood is insignificantly small in comparison to the black pop. Not to mention that the ghetto fucks you so valiantly bend the truth to protect would be better off trying to build infrastructure and stability rather than leech off tax dollars, be general drug dealing stealing niggers, and then blaming the "oppressive slave regime" of the white man, which hasnt been in effect for years. The Irish and the Jews were oppressed in the US and they didnt cry and sit back on their social welfare checks they made something of themselves. TL;DR Fucking niggers...
#84 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
The second amendment gives militias and people the right to bare arms, as stated in the line "the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed." the supreme court has upheld several times that the "people" are average citizens. And that final statement is not a gross misreading of events. The feds were threatening to fire on civilians who were exercising their first, so they started to back up their first with the second. He stopped paying because of very clear corruption and greed, i.e. you're cattle are endangering this animal so you have to move, but if you pay us you can keep grazing here and endangering the animal. And if the problem is guns being smuggled into the city then why aren't places with loose gun laws like the wild west where everyone is getting shot? Why is it the only places in America that have gun problems are the places with the most gun control?
User avatar
#88 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
Because there aren't congested disaffected populations in rural Maine. And, come on, the people you accuse of defending themselves are also the ones who are salivating at the prospect of an armed shootout with the federal government. I know this is going to seem like I'm weak or whatever but I'm putting an end to this thread because gun control debates just go round and round and frustrate everyone involved for multiple reasons. Feel free to have the final word.
#93 - doktorwhat (04/24/2014) [-]
I was born in rural Maine! Most people I knew that had guns were hunters. Most made damn sure that their ammo was locked up separately from their guns and practiced hunter safety and such. I did, however, recently hear of some old drunk crazy guy who killed the cousin of an old friend of mine near Christmas time last year or the year before because he parked in his spot. I'll respect your desire to end the thread although I'd tend to be on your side, anyway , but I just wanted to throw in a little "peace and love will solve all our problems" kinda thing. Happy people don't kill other people.

that is all.
User avatar
#49 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
sorry for the cliché
User avatar
#30 - ohhh (04/24/2014) [-]
To be fair, that may be the difference between life and death.
User avatar
#32 - monswine (04/24/2014) [-]
absolutely. The risk of an accident increases exponentially with ever mile above the speed limit while the time of travel only decreases linearly.
User avatar
#11 - thecomkiller (04/24/2014) [-]
you have to draw a line somewhere
#22 - LocoJoe (04/24/2014) [-]
Implying barrel length should even be regulated.
#42 - thecomkiller (04/24/2014) [-]
yes, because being able to have easily-concealable rifles is a good thing, and there's dozens of reasons you need a shorter barrel.
User avatar
#64 - twofreegerbils (04/24/2014) [-]
You're fucking dumb dude. You know what's infinitely more concealable than any rifle, or short barreled rifle? A fucking handgun. But no, you're just not as scared of handguns as you are rifles, because you base your opinion of things on appearances.
>inb4 handguns aren't as DEADLY
A certain Mr. Cho would like to have a word with you on the lethality of handguns.

And the fact that you think there's no need for something more compact than a 16" barreled rifle tells me, without a doubt, you've never even fired a rifle, and probably have never held one.

roliga can you permaban this faggot please?
User avatar
#116 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Ad hominem.
Handguns have specific laws because of their concealability.
Handguns are harder to aim and are usually a lower caliber than rifles.
I own several and use them often.
And you have to try and ban me? Isn't this the internet?
User avatar
#117 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Handguns have specific laws because of their concealability.
Uh.. Besides a higher age requirement, like what?

Handguns are harder to aim and are usually a lower caliber than rifles
See Virginia Tech.

If you can give me one reason why a 10" barreled rifle is inherently more dangerous than a 16" barreled rifle, I will concede to you.

...You do know that you can but "pistol" AR's and AK's that are even smaller than most short barreled rifles, right?
User avatar
#118 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
I'm not saying pistols and the like aren't any worse than a BB-gun I'm saying they're less deadly, even though they're still deadly

A 10" barrel would be easier to conceal than a 16". Yeah, there's an arbitrary dividing line, but it's not like there are set lengths that cannot be deviated from which would make any length they set it as arbitrary.

And I guarantee you, the minute someone uses those as a loophole and does something illegal, there will be a change in the laws towards them.

Plus, you try and make perfect laws for modern weapons when people drag their heels by citing laws made for flintlocks.
User avatar
#120 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Let me propose a hypothetical.

I am about to rob a bank. Even though it would make so much more sense for me to use a handgun, like 99% of criminals do, I have chosen to use a rifle for some dumbass reason. I notice that it's a little bit long for my taste, but the barrel is already at the legal limit of 16". Since I don't want to violate the law, I choose not to use a hacksaw to illegally shorten the barrel. Once again, the NFA has prevented me from DANGEROUSLY shortening my barrel beyond the legal length.

Does that seem very realistic to you?
User avatar
#121 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
So having meth on you should be legal too, since the law can't really stop you unless you're smoking it while walking down the street, just like they can't stop you from cutting that barrel down unless you're doing it while walking down the street.

But you know what? You're right, let's just cut the tangled knot that is over 200 years of evolving laws and ban guns altogether. Like Japan.
User avatar
#122 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, because it worked so well for Japan, right? Oh wait... Do you actually believe those falsified crime statistics? Typical weaboo.
User avatar
#123 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Because of course you need to have guns to commit crimes.
And fuck japan and their fucking otaku or whatever they're called with a rusty fork, but they ban guns and thus don't have to appease people who want to go deer hunting with an uzi.
User avatar
#124 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Wait... WAIT. Don't tell me, you're one of the people who think that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting?


I can't believe I've been arguing with a retard!
User avatar
#125 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
The second amendment is about owning flintlock rifles 200 years ago.
What's your legitimate reason for owning guns other than for hunting, sport shooting, or defense (and unless you're going to actively fight in something other than the random trespasser there's no need for these types of guns)?
User avatar
#126 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
No, it's fucking not.

If you actually read the federalist papers instead of being an ignorant cunt, you would realize that the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own any of the small arms that our standing military owned and used, so that the military would never be able to overpower the civilians on a man to man basis.

If the happening happened, your kind would be the first to die.
User avatar
#127 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Wait... WAIT. Don't tell me, you're one of the people who think that the US government needs to be overthrown because they do their job of regulating things.


I can't believe I've been arguing with a inbred redneck!
#128 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Go to hell.
#129 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
You hear that? That is what you sound like?
#132 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
Euphoria? Bid me adieu? Where have I heard these phrases before..
User avatar
#133 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
User avatar
#130 - twofreegerbils (04/25/2014) [-]
I can't believe people like you are allowed to breathe, much less vote.

Hopefully natural selection takes care of you before the next presidential term.
#131 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
Oh, natural selection has kept very good care of me so far, but thank you. You know, after the last comment or two, I have had a sudden wave of euphoria it seems. Seeing as it was your vain attempts at argument that brought it on, I feel I must express my gratitude.
Thank you for the enjoyable evening, and I bid you adieu.
User avatar
#119 - thecomkiller (04/25/2014) [-]
I now realized I phrased the first one wrong.
User avatar
#65 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Sadly ignorance isn ot a banable offense
User avatar
#60 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
It is and there are.
#16 - coloredfolks (04/24/2014) [-]
#6 - tehnoblebean (04/23/2014) [-]
A rifle with a shorted barrel is way more concealable.
I.E Like in a school bad, a lunch box or a bag of doritoz
#86 - qwermy (04/24/2014) [-]
so is a pistol.
#71 - twofreegerbils (04/24/2014) [-]
Handguns are still more concealable than rifles.

Regulating barrel length is an exercise in futility. Short barreled rifle and shotgun laws are the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard of. A criminal can literally take a band saw and chop the barrel of his rifle or shotgun off minutes before he commits the crime with it. He's already breaking a law about using the gun illegally, do you think he's going to heed a law concerning the barrel length of the gun he's using? Hell no.

Barrel length is unregulated in fucking CANADA of all places, where they have 5 round magazine caps. It's almost, ALMOST as stupid as regulating suppressors. But not quite. Basically everything the NFA regulates is bullshit based on hollywood hype and FUD.
#8 - roliga (04/24/2014) [-]
Then people just build the receiver as a pistol and you get things like the Drako AK pistols that are completely legal, but if you put a stock on it that's a felony.
#13 - anon (04/24/2014) [-]
because if a few criminals are smart enough to find a way around a law it isn't worth making it at all.
#136 - anon (04/29/2014) [-]
I'm a firm believer that any law that does not achieve it's goal is pointless. Fucking EVERYBODY that knows 2 facts about guns know how to subvert the laws that are being talked about. Therefore they are pointless.

I'm not even talking about the Drako pistols, even though those are pretty common knowledge as well. Any restriction that can be defeated with common tools and resources such as a hand saw or duct tape in a way that you can't easily track is a failure.

My biggest gripe about weapon laws is that the majority seem to be there just to make people feel good and safe when they don't actually do anything.