Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:11/15/2012
Last Login:8/21/2016
Comment Ranking:#19388
Highest Content Rank:#1349
Highest Comment Rank:#5827
Content Thumbs: 5480 total,  6300 ,  820
Comment Thumbs: 863 total,  1358 ,  495
Content Level Progress: 66% (66/100)
Level 148 Content: Faptastic → Level 149 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 174 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Content Views:254902
Times Content Favorited:291 times
Total Comments Made:419
FJ Points:5607
Favorite Tags: The Game (18) | OP (6) | Pokemon (3) | Hitler (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#64 - Not if they were halfway skilled. Makashi is hard-countered by…  [+] (4 replies) 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
User avatar
#77 - angelusprimus (12/01/2014) [-]
Makashi with its limited movement and duelist mindset is actually very effective against defense-retaliation style of fifth form. Good counter to Makashi is either form Ataru with countering the motion shy Makashi with massive motion or Vapaad.
User avatar
#92 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
I specifically said that it was hard countered by a FV user with a crossguard. I can testify to that with real-world experience using kendo and German-style longsword fencing techniques (the inspiration for Djem So) against a skilled foil fencer/Wudang fencer (the inspiration for Makashi). Without a crossguard, a Makashi user takes an equally skilled Djem So user 8/10 times; with a crossguard, however, the Djem So user gets a nearly insurmountable advantage with the ability to catch and manipulate the other fighter's saber, turning the advantage to the Djem-So user.
User avatar
#106 - angelusprimus (12/01/2014) [-]

But Kunst des Fechtens does not correspond to Djem So. It is aggressive frontal style far more corresponding to form VII Vaapad than Djem So. Djem So would be far more similar to Liberi's Italian style that is defensive style with many counter attacks.
#105 - angelusprimus has deleted their comment.
#62 - Cortosis weave, ************  [+] (1 reply) 12/01/2014 on For all of you silly gooses 0
User avatar
#110 - johnnyiscool (12/01/2014) [-]
Okay, so the problem with that is that I can't recall that ever being mentioned in the movies. The lightsabers in the previous films clearly aren't made of it, considering lightsabers are cut in half like once per film. It's perfectly fine if that's what the new one is made of, but that material hasn't been introduced in the any of the films, at least not from what I can remember.
#62 - Never fired SCAR, but they look pretty sweet.  [+] (3 replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
#110 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
I've never fired one, but there's no way they're $2600 sweet, when it does nothing an AR can't do.
User avatar
#133 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
It can fire a full-sized rifle round, but it doesn't do anything and FAL or G3 can't
#144 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
Oh, the .308 version? Yeah, then you're talking $3600.
Or for $2k less you could get an M1A, or a perfectly decent AR10.
#59 - They're okay. They have nothing on the M16 or pic related, though.  [+] (14 replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen 0
#64 - mikeoxlong (12/01/2014) [-]
Do you know literally anything about guns? Kalashnikovs shit on both of those
User avatar
#139 - fuelnfire (12/01/2014) [-]
In what regard? An AK might be more durable than the SCAR physically, but AR's, and SCAR's are no slouches.
#140 - mikeoxlong (12/01/2014) [-]
The comment I was replying to stated M16's and M1 garand's are better rifles than the AK-47. Not the SCAR.
User avatar
#141 - fuelnfire (12/01/2014) [-]
Original M16 was nothing special, the M1 Garand I'd disagree. At the time, the AK is a better designed rifle though.
User avatar
#77 - thatoneiranianguy (12/01/2014) [-]
AK's are good but they're by far from perfect.

The AR platform is a good contestant, and the M1 Garand is an entirely different rifle.

That being said - get all three.
#120 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
I would say the AK is the best of the three, all things considered. M1 isn't really "modern" so I wouldn't really even compare the two.

AK is just so simple and so reliable. Not to mention battle proven by dozens of countries since 1947. More effective round, little to no maintenance required, runs well dirty, no ammo picky-ness, at around $500-$600 for a top of the line Bulgarian model. Compare to an ar where the bare minimum for the most basic model is around $600, on up to well past $1200 if you have more money than sense.
#67 - spamm (12/01/2014) [-]
Glocks are pretty badass.

pic related.

Its a glock.
#69 - Nanico (12/01/2014) [-]
Please educate yourself, that is an AK-47
User avatar
#65 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
The AK is a durable, reliable bastard, but I prefer the feel of the M16 (and I'm a better shot with it). The M1 Garand is a different animal altogether, and for a serious marksman it's a much better weapon than the AK or the M16. There's a reason Patton called it "the greatest implement of war ever made".
#61 - butwhynot (12/01/2014) [-]
M16 is cool. Though I prefer the M4 myself. I am starting to like the SCAR more and more as well, the MK17 is quite nice.
User avatar
#62 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Never fired SCAR, but they look pretty sweet.
#110 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
I've never fired one, but there's no way they're $2600 sweet, when it does nothing an AR can't do.
User avatar
#133 - iamkagji (12/01/2014) [-]
It can fire a full-sized rifle round, but it doesn't do anything and FAL or G3 can't
#144 - bazda (12/01/2014) [-]
Oh, the .308 version? Yeah, then you're talking $3600.
Or for $2k less you could get an M1A, or a perfectly decent AR10.
#54 - ljxjlos Here you go, you freedomless kraut ****.  [+] (5 replies) 12/01/2014 on Racism 0
User avatar
#84 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Yeah...that really doesn´t change a thing.
User avatar
#85 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
So being presented with evidence of responsible gun-owning adults exercising their rights to defend the life and property of another doesn't even make you reconsider your views in the slightest?

I'll reiterate: you're a freedomless kraut shit, and I hope I get the chance to fuck your shit personally if you guys start another World War.
User avatar
#86 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
No - because it wouldn´t even be necessary with stricter gun regulation.

>implying I´d parttake in a war.
>implying you could "fuck up my shit"
User avatar
#88 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
>implying herp derp muh conscientious objection
User avatar
#87 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Niggers are gonna nig whether civilians can own guns or not. The rioters aren't using guns, they're using tanks of gasoline and sledgehammers to wreak their niggardry on St. Louis. If there were stricter gun control in place here, these fine people would not be any better armed than the rioting thugs and they would be ineffective at guarding the place from the slavering hordes of looters.
#50 - You claim our document is outdated, and I'll agree. There are …  [+] (4 replies) 12/01/2014 on The sexiest gif I've ever seen +2
User avatar
#143 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
Also: Freedom itself is pretty much a myth. In a society like ours, with as many people on the earth as we have, it´s pretty much impossibkle to "be free". Back in the past, with 1/1000 as many people....maybe, freedom was a thing back then, when people did not have to interact with each other at such a big scale. But the more people have to interact, the more rules we have and the more rules we have, the less freedom. It´s not nice, but that´s how it is. That´s, by the way, pretty much the reason why many people deem their governments "tyrannical", too - the more people, the more international contact and interaction, the more rules. And as our world grows more intervined and multinational, the more rules are needed to keep it working - that´s how overly law-restricted societies come into existance.
User avatar
#154 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
This is actually pretty much spot on, I can't argue with your thesis here. Regardless, there are human rights that are inalienable, and they are inalienable as long as there are people who believe in them fervently enough that they are willing to fight for them. If I am willing to bear arms (and die) in defense of my right to bear arms, then that right has not been taken from me, and I never lose it. As Epicurus so famously put: "Death means nothing to me, for when I am, Death has not yet come; and when Death comes, I am no longer." When I'm dead, I lose all my rights as a human anyway, so it doesn't matter that I died defending my rights.
User avatar
#142 - ljxjlos (12/01/2014) [-]
If you really think that your guns are for protecting yourself against the government, you´re lying to yourself. There are two possibilities in case the government actually turns tyrannical:
a) the military isn´t on their side: In this case, the government will fail, nothing will happen and you´ll life savely even without your weapons - no to mention that no government would turn tyrannical without the support of the military.
b) the military IS on the side of the government and those who oppose are slaughtered while trying to fight against Battle-Helicopters, highly trained operatives, airplane-carriers, fighting jets, etc, etc with handguns.
In the atomic age, "safety from the government" is a myth. If you think your government is tyrannical or bad, become a politician. That´s how you change things. Or well, that how you may try to change things.

"I for one feel significantly safer knowing there are other mature, armed adults nearby." - Well, have fun with that, I´ll just stay here and feel safe because there are no mass shootings, gun-wielding niggers as opposed to black men or armed incesteous Rednecks around here and because our police are actually mentally trained on being stable enough to not shoot people.
#149 - misterbatman (12/01/2014) [-]
Nice black/white fallacy, buddy. As a matter of fact, there is a third alternative that's more likely to happen in the event of a full-scale revolt: the people will amass weaponry and fortify their homes and towns, using their knowledge of the terrain to engage in guerrilla warfare; there would be significant loss of life on the ground by both civilians and the military before the government determined that air superiority was necessary. After the first few towns are carpetbombed, the individual members of the military will realize that they are slaughtering their own brothers and sisters, and many of them will lay down their arms. Americans are fine when we're slaughtering sand-niggers or killing viet cong, but we're not partial to firing hellfire missiles into downtown Atlanta or blowing up buildings in New York--as a matter of fact, we have a very long history of not being partial to terrorist attacks on the home front. You could even say we built our reputation on that.

You're a weak, frail kraut bastard, and at the end of the day you'll see that your dependence on your government and your faith in your "mentally trained" SS police force is misplaced.

Pic fucking related.