x
Click to expand

obviouscaptain

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:12/03/2010
Last Login:7/29/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14421
Highest Content Rank:#3007
Highest Comment Rank:#10975
Content Thumbs: 1696 total,  2015 ,  319
Comment Thumbs: 135 total,  339 ,  204
Content Level Progress: 95% (95/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 51 Comments: Sammich eater → Level 52 Comments: Sammich eater
Subscribers:0
Content Views:18447
Times Content Favorited:300 times
Total Comments Made:250
FJ Points:1806
Favorite Tags: The Game (2)

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 17888
    Thumbs Up 882 Thumbs Down 117 Total: +765
    Comments: 239
    Favorites: 145
    Uploaded: 03/26/11
    Religon Religon
  • Views: 19440
    Thumbs Up 665 Thumbs Down 79 Total: +586
    Comments: 36
    Favorites: 119
    Uploaded: 12/03/10
    Classic Argument Classic Argument
  • Views: 2864
    Thumbs Up 89 Thumbs Down 17 Total: +72
    Comments: 14
    Favorites: 7
    Uploaded: 03/28/11
    Religon 2 Religon 2
  • Views: 2012
    Thumbs Up 51 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +45
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 3
    Uploaded: 03/23/11
    Funny Story. Funny Story.
  • Views: 4582
    Thumbs Up 25 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +22
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 5
    Uploaded: 03/31/11
    4Chan Pokemon 4Chan Pokemon
  • Views: 976
    Thumbs Up 23 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +22
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/24/11
    Pokemon Reality Check Pokemon Reality Check
1 2 3 4 5 > [ 25 ]

latest user's comments

#14 - 25% of your income.. that sucks. What did you go to school for? 07/04/2015 on Student loan payment due 0
#136 - I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/02/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
#108 - A civilian is not going to be required to be as good with a fi…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #113 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
But a robbery is pretty uncommon. I'm talking about how an untrained citizen that doesn't know how to handle a weapon will react to a stressful situation. Like a rowdy drunk.
#107 - I have a problem with it because it isnt necessary. If someone…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #112 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It is necessary in many people's opinion and mine. People overreact to situations. I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar. That is what I'm referring to, not people being mugged in back allies. Why do you think cops are getting so much shit lately? It's because a select few of them have handled situations poorly (Not talking about those niggers getting shot) with weapons. All of it stemmed back on their training and how cops should be trained more. So, why are civilians allowed to handle situations with no training at all? I've heard multiple people with permits say they would shoot anyone who even touched them and claim it was in self defense because they feared for their life. People freak out, especially those not trained.



a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things

That is the definition of a slippery slope. Nothing more and nothing less. You are implying that things will get worse in regards to restrictions just because one restriction was passed. That's a slippery slope. I also can't believe you are so dumb to sit here and compare a hypothetical situation to "If I am falling I will hit the ground". That backs up it being a slippery slope even more.

In the end, I can guarantee you are incompetent with handling situations with weapons. Keep believing you know how to handle situations "cuz u wuer raized in da cuntry" while others take months to years out of their lives to train for what we are talking about. Just another faggot that thinks owning weapons and buying a few tactical items for his AR means he should be SF.
User avatar #136 - obviouscaptain (07/02/2015) [-]
I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar.
Whats the problem? Someone assaults you, and you defend yourself. You act like a punch cant be deadly. Especially when someone is drunk and may not stop once you hit the ground.
You also act like its civilians responding to situations like police, while it is not like that at all. Its the situation is there, you either have a gun to defend yourself or you dont have a gun.
i never said I would be 100% competent, or anywhere near the level of someone who was actually trained by the military, but thats not the argument. Its if you are safer with a gun versus not having one.

I dont know where your getting all this where you think i said I was some sick operator or something, and assuming I have an AR. You're making so many assumptions its unreal.
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
#100 - Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove th…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #106 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
And my thing about the military was how it takes months for us to be trusted on how to react to situations and handle weapons. Hell, we had an entire week of how to clear rooms without even flagging your own team member. Why would you trust a civilian that has almost no weapon knowledge in handling a gas station robbery or even handling someone else being held at gunpoint?
User avatar #108 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
A civilian is not going to be required to be as good with a firearm as someone in the military. That's ridiculous. I would rather trust a civilian with a gun trying to stop a robbery then a civilian without a gun trying to stop a robbery.
User avatar #113 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
But a robbery is pretty uncommon. I'm talking about how an untrained citizen that doesn't know how to handle a weapon will react to a stressful situation. Like a rowdy drunk.
User avatar #103 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
The fact you are saying they probably would is a slippery slope. Even mentioning that is a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on something that could hypothetically happen if event A happens. That is a slippery slope. There is no supporting evidence for them doing what you are saying, so once again...slippery slope.
Also, a nuclear weapon is comparable. They are both considered arms. Unless, gasp, you are saying that the constitution shouldn't be taken literally and should have restrictions on certain rights in there? Times change and so do the laws. My entire point was that the constitution did not account for future technological advances with that blanket statement and our modern day government imposed their own laws/regulations on top of our given rights in the constitution, but because you agree with them there you have no problem with "ur freddumbs" being taken away. What I am saying is, why do you have a problem with something as low as taking classes to publicly carry when hundreds of arms have already been banned? Society has changed so much it's not even funny.
User avatar #107 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
I have a problem with it because it isnt necessary. If someone is not competent enough to defend themselves in a situation, that is their problem and theirs alone. Why should I be forced to take a course because other people might be incompetent?

Your defintion of slippery slope is wrong. Its like I jump out of a plane, and say I'm going to hit the ground, and someone says "haha slippery slope. You're assuming you'll hit the ground based on the event that you're free-falling. You can't know that"
Its not illogical to assume that they would want to just keep restricting permits.
User avatar #112 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It is necessary in many people's opinion and mine. People overreact to situations. I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar. That is what I'm referring to, not people being mugged in back allies. Why do you think cops are getting so much shit lately? It's because a select few of them have handled situations poorly (Not talking about those niggers getting shot) with weapons. All of it stemmed back on their training and how cops should be trained more. So, why are civilians allowed to handle situations with no training at all? I've heard multiple people with permits say they would shoot anyone who even touched them and claim it was in self defense because they feared for their life. People freak out, especially those not trained.



a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things

That is the definition of a slippery slope. Nothing more and nothing less. You are implying that things will get worse in regards to restrictions just because one restriction was passed. That's a slippery slope. I also can't believe you are so dumb to sit here and compare a hypothetical situation to "If I am falling I will hit the ground". That backs up it being a slippery slope even more.

In the end, I can guarantee you are incompetent with handling situations with weapons. Keep believing you know how to handle situations "cuz u wuer raized in da cuntry" while others take months to years out of their lives to train for what we are talking about. Just another faggot that thinks owning weapons and buying a few tactical items for his AR means he should be SF.
User avatar #136 - obviouscaptain (07/02/2015) [-]
I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar.
Whats the problem? Someone assaults you, and you defend yourself. You act like a punch cant be deadly. Especially when someone is drunk and may not stop once you hit the ground.
You also act like its civilians responding to situations like police, while it is not like that at all. Its the situation is there, you either have a gun to defend yourself or you dont have a gun.
i never said I would be 100% competent, or anywhere near the level of someone who was actually trained by the military, but thats not the argument. Its if you are safer with a gun versus not having one.

I dont know where your getting all this where you think i said I was some sick operator or something, and assuming I have an AR. You're making so many assumptions its unreal.
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
#95 - Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and …  [+] (10 new replies) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #98 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Because it's a hypothetical proposition from me to the government. I'm saying that it shouldn't cost too much and now you are acting as if it does cost a lot. A lot of classes don't cost too much, especially if you want to take them to achieve something.

Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?

That was literally the most perfect slippery slope I have ever seen. Keep in school, kids. You're implying event B will happen because event A happened. That's exactly what a slippery slope is.

Also, I can't believe you are so ignorant that you don't understand that there are already dozens of limitations on this "right" of ours. Do you have the right to own a bunker buster or a nuclear weapon? They are both arms, so why not?
User avatar #100 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?
Because the military has certain demands that make a good solider. The solider must be able to do certain things, that's why they have tests.

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question.

It is not. There is zero way the government couldn't do exactly what I said, have a hard test and not hand out permits. It is a very real possibility if you give them that much power, so why would you risk it?

A nuclear weapon is not comparable to a firearm at all. We both know they aren't, thats not what we're arguing about.
User avatar #106 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
And my thing about the military was how it takes months for us to be trusted on how to react to situations and handle weapons. Hell, we had an entire week of how to clear rooms without even flagging your own team member. Why would you trust a civilian that has almost no weapon knowledge in handling a gas station robbery or even handling someone else being held at gunpoint?
User avatar #108 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
A civilian is not going to be required to be as good with a firearm as someone in the military. That's ridiculous. I would rather trust a civilian with a gun trying to stop a robbery then a civilian without a gun trying to stop a robbery.
User avatar #113 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
But a robbery is pretty uncommon. I'm talking about how an untrained citizen that doesn't know how to handle a weapon will react to a stressful situation. Like a rowdy drunk.
User avatar #103 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
The fact you are saying they probably would is a slippery slope. Even mentioning that is a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on something that could hypothetically happen if event A happens. That is a slippery slope. There is no supporting evidence for them doing what you are saying, so once again...slippery slope.
Also, a nuclear weapon is comparable. They are both considered arms. Unless, gasp, you are saying that the constitution shouldn't be taken literally and should have restrictions on certain rights in there? Times change and so do the laws. My entire point was that the constitution did not account for future technological advances with that blanket statement and our modern day government imposed their own laws/regulations on top of our given rights in the constitution, but because you agree with them there you have no problem with "ur freddumbs" being taken away. What I am saying is, why do you have a problem with something as low as taking classes to publicly carry when hundreds of arms have already been banned? Society has changed so much it's not even funny.
User avatar #107 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
I have a problem with it because it isnt necessary. If someone is not competent enough to defend themselves in a situation, that is their problem and theirs alone. Why should I be forced to take a course because other people might be incompetent?

Your defintion of slippery slope is wrong. Its like I jump out of a plane, and say I'm going to hit the ground, and someone says "haha slippery slope. You're assuming you'll hit the ground based on the event that you're free-falling. You can't know that"
Its not illogical to assume that they would want to just keep restricting permits.
User avatar #112 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It is necessary in many people's opinion and mine. People overreact to situations. I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar. That is what I'm referring to, not people being mugged in back allies. Why do you think cops are getting so much shit lately? It's because a select few of them have handled situations poorly (Not talking about those niggers getting shot) with weapons. All of it stemmed back on their training and how cops should be trained more. So, why are civilians allowed to handle situations with no training at all? I've heard multiple people with permits say they would shoot anyone who even touched them and claim it was in self defense because they feared for their life. People freak out, especially those not trained.



a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things

That is the definition of a slippery slope. Nothing more and nothing less. You are implying that things will get worse in regards to restrictions just because one restriction was passed. That's a slippery slope. I also can't believe you are so dumb to sit here and compare a hypothetical situation to "If I am falling I will hit the ground". That backs up it being a slippery slope even more.

In the end, I can guarantee you are incompetent with handling situations with weapons. Keep believing you know how to handle situations "cuz u wuer raized in da cuntry" while others take months to years out of their lives to train for what we are talking about. Just another faggot that thinks owning weapons and buying a few tactical items for his AR means he should be SF.
User avatar #136 - obviouscaptain (07/02/2015) [-]
I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar.
Whats the problem? Someone assaults you, and you defend yourself. You act like a punch cant be deadly. Especially when someone is drunk and may not stop once you hit the ground.
You also act like its civilians responding to situations like police, while it is not like that at all. Its the situation is there, you either have a gun to defend yourself or you dont have a gun.
i never said I would be 100% competent, or anywhere near the level of someone who was actually trained by the military, but thats not the argument. Its if you are safer with a gun versus not having one.

I dont know where your getting all this where you think i said I was some sick operator or something, and assuming I have an AR. You're making so many assumptions its unreal.
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
#82 - Shooting at paper targets means nothing in regards to how to r…  [+] (12 new replies) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #90 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and bring your own ammo. This isn't about getting them on par with our infantry or cops, just basic weapon safety and how to react to certain situations. By your logic we should just entirely remove any checks on people getting permits and allow criminals to carry as well because in the constitution it didn't differentiate. Quit treating the constitution like it is something handed down by a deity. The constitution can be changed and maybe it should sometime in the future. Times change and a document written by a few men hundreds of years ago should not be the go-to for everything in regards to how modern society works. I honestly believe you should have to go through at least a month of decently hard training on weapons safety, reacting to situations, etc before being allowed to carry in public. You disagree with that, why? Because people have to take time of their days to learn how to handle one of the most deadly creations in human history? Oh wow, that's so bad man. I also love the slippery slope you threw in at the end.
In the end, military forces are still not trusted most of the time with weapons around people by their chain of command. Hence not being allowed to keep your weapons even on post, not even being given ammo to go deal with riots, etc. I 100% do not trust you hick ass publicly carrying and I don't care if it would be a minor inconvenience for you to take some classes. If you don't want to do them then don't get a permit.
User avatar #95 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and bring your own ammo.
How do you know it wouldn't cost alot?

I honestly believe you should have to go through at least a month of decently hard training on weapons safety, reacting to situations, etc before being allowed to carry in public.
Why? I dont see why people should have to prove themselves.

It's not a slippery slope. They have direction connection. The government starts issuing permits for cc, they decide they don't want people to have them, they slowly issue less and less until their are none.
User avatar #98 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Because it's a hypothetical proposition from me to the government. I'm saying that it shouldn't cost too much and now you are acting as if it does cost a lot. A lot of classes don't cost too much, especially if you want to take them to achieve something.

Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?

That was literally the most perfect slippery slope I have ever seen. Keep in school, kids. You're implying event B will happen because event A happened. That's exactly what a slippery slope is.

Also, I can't believe you are so ignorant that you don't understand that there are already dozens of limitations on this "right" of ours. Do you have the right to own a bunker buster or a nuclear weapon? They are both arms, so why not?
User avatar #100 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?
Because the military has certain demands that make a good solider. The solider must be able to do certain things, that's why they have tests.

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question.

It is not. There is zero way the government couldn't do exactly what I said, have a hard test and not hand out permits. It is a very real possibility if you give them that much power, so why would you risk it?

A nuclear weapon is not comparable to a firearm at all. We both know they aren't, thats not what we're arguing about.
User avatar #106 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
And my thing about the military was how it takes months for us to be trusted on how to react to situations and handle weapons. Hell, we had an entire week of how to clear rooms without even flagging your own team member. Why would you trust a civilian that has almost no weapon knowledge in handling a gas station robbery or even handling someone else being held at gunpoint?
User avatar #108 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
A civilian is not going to be required to be as good with a firearm as someone in the military. That's ridiculous. I would rather trust a civilian with a gun trying to stop a robbery then a civilian without a gun trying to stop a robbery.
User avatar #113 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
But a robbery is pretty uncommon. I'm talking about how an untrained citizen that doesn't know how to handle a weapon will react to a stressful situation. Like a rowdy drunk.
User avatar #103 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
The fact you are saying they probably would is a slippery slope. Even mentioning that is a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on something that could hypothetically happen if event A happens. That is a slippery slope. There is no supporting evidence for them doing what you are saying, so once again...slippery slope.
Also, a nuclear weapon is comparable. They are both considered arms. Unless, gasp, you are saying that the constitution shouldn't be taken literally and should have restrictions on certain rights in there? Times change and so do the laws. My entire point was that the constitution did not account for future technological advances with that blanket statement and our modern day government imposed their own laws/regulations on top of our given rights in the constitution, but because you agree with them there you have no problem with "ur freddumbs" being taken away. What I am saying is, why do you have a problem with something as low as taking classes to publicly carry when hundreds of arms have already been banned? Society has changed so much it's not even funny.
User avatar #107 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
I have a problem with it because it isnt necessary. If someone is not competent enough to defend themselves in a situation, that is their problem and theirs alone. Why should I be forced to take a course because other people might be incompetent?

Your defintion of slippery slope is wrong. Its like I jump out of a plane, and say I'm going to hit the ground, and someone says "haha slippery slope. You're assuming you'll hit the ground based on the event that you're free-falling. You can't know that"
Its not illogical to assume that they would want to just keep restricting permits.
User avatar #112 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It is necessary in many people's opinion and mine. People overreact to situations. I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar. That is what I'm referring to, not people being mugged in back allies. Why do you think cops are getting so much shit lately? It's because a select few of them have handled situations poorly (Not talking about those niggers getting shot) with weapons. All of it stemmed back on their training and how cops should be trained more. So, why are civilians allowed to handle situations with no training at all? I've heard multiple people with permits say they would shoot anyone who even touched them and claim it was in self defense because they feared for their life. People freak out, especially those not trained.



a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things

That is the definition of a slippery slope. Nothing more and nothing less. You are implying that things will get worse in regards to restrictions just because one restriction was passed. That's a slippery slope. I also can't believe you are so dumb to sit here and compare a hypothetical situation to "If I am falling I will hit the ground". That backs up it being a slippery slope even more.

In the end, I can guarantee you are incompetent with handling situations with weapons. Keep believing you know how to handle situations "cuz u wuer raized in da cuntry" while others take months to years out of their lives to train for what we are talking about. Just another faggot that thinks owning weapons and buying a few tactical items for his AR means he should be SF.
User avatar #136 - obviouscaptain (07/02/2015) [-]
I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar.
Whats the problem? Someone assaults you, and you defend yourself. You act like a punch cant be deadly. Especially when someone is drunk and may not stop once you hit the ground.
You also act like its civilians responding to situations like police, while it is not like that at all. Its the situation is there, you either have a gun to defend yourself or you dont have a gun.
i never said I would be 100% competent, or anywhere near the level of someone who was actually trained by the military, but thats not the argument. Its if you are safer with a gun versus not having one.

I dont know where your getting all this where you think i said I was some sick operator or something, and assuming I have an AR. You're making so many assumptions its unreal.
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
#77 - It would effect people because now they have to take time out …  [+] (14 new replies) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #80 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Shooting at paper targets means nothing in regards to how to react to situations with weapons. It takes months to years to be fully trained on that and apparently you believe it is logical to just hand out permits because someone has a clean record. Also, I am still assuming you have no experience in regards to how to handle situations with weapons. People that train for years still mess up in combat and back in the states (cops). I 100% am backing up making it harder to gain access to one of your rights. People will still have the right to carry, but will have to prove themselves in class. Same thing for college. People have a god given right to do many things, but a lot of the time it requires training and putting time into it. Also, I love how you're stupid enough to believe people would be losing their rights because of having to prove their competence. Go back to the woods.
User avatar #82 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Shooting at paper targets means nothing in regards to how to react to situations with weapons.
People will still have the right to carry, but will have to prove themselves in class.
Okay so shooting at paper targets means nothing, but they have to prove themselves in a class now? How much will that cost? Who will pay? If you want it to be as thorough as you want so you know someone will 100% be able to handle the situation, it would be disgustingly expensive and time consuming, as you said cops get lots of training and still fuck up. This would mean only rich people/people with lots of time are allowed to carry, instead of everyone.

People have a god given right to do many things, but a lot of the time it requires training and putting time into it.
I dont know where you even got this from. Is it like a personal quote or something? Rights are rights. You dont have to work for them, you just get them for being alive.

Also, I love how you're stupid enough to believe people would be losing their rights because of having to prove their competence.
It would. What would stop the government from making the test hard as fuck so no-one passes? Congratulations, you just banned ccing. You're letting the government decide who gets to have a weapon for self-defense and who doesn't.

Also not sure what you mean about that college thing. If you think college is even slightly difficult, I have bad news for you.
User avatar #90 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and bring your own ammo. This isn't about getting them on par with our infantry or cops, just basic weapon safety and how to react to certain situations. By your logic we should just entirely remove any checks on people getting permits and allow criminals to carry as well because in the constitution it didn't differentiate. Quit treating the constitution like it is something handed down by a deity. The constitution can be changed and maybe it should sometime in the future. Times change and a document written by a few men hundreds of years ago should not be the go-to for everything in regards to how modern society works. I honestly believe you should have to go through at least a month of decently hard training on weapons safety, reacting to situations, etc before being allowed to carry in public. You disagree with that, why? Because people have to take time of their days to learn how to handle one of the most deadly creations in human history? Oh wow, that's so bad man. I also love the slippery slope you threw in at the end.
In the end, military forces are still not trusted most of the time with weapons around people by their chain of command. Hence not being allowed to keep your weapons even on post, not even being given ammo to go deal with riots, etc. I 100% do not trust you hick ass publicly carrying and I don't care if it would be a minor inconvenience for you to take some classes. If you don't want to do them then don't get a permit.
User avatar #95 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and bring your own ammo.
How do you know it wouldn't cost alot?

I honestly believe you should have to go through at least a month of decently hard training on weapons safety, reacting to situations, etc before being allowed to carry in public.
Why? I dont see why people should have to prove themselves.

It's not a slippery slope. They have direction connection. The government starts issuing permits for cc, they decide they don't want people to have them, they slowly issue less and less until their are none.
User avatar #98 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Because it's a hypothetical proposition from me to the government. I'm saying that it shouldn't cost too much and now you are acting as if it does cost a lot. A lot of classes don't cost too much, especially if you want to take them to achieve something.

Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?

That was literally the most perfect slippery slope I have ever seen. Keep in school, kids. You're implying event B will happen because event A happened. That's exactly what a slippery slope is.

Also, I can't believe you are so ignorant that you don't understand that there are already dozens of limitations on this "right" of ours. Do you have the right to own a bunker buster or a nuclear weapon? They are both arms, so why not?
User avatar #100 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?
Because the military has certain demands that make a good solider. The solider must be able to do certain things, that's why they have tests.

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question.

It is not. There is zero way the government couldn't do exactly what I said, have a hard test and not hand out permits. It is a very real possibility if you give them that much power, so why would you risk it?

A nuclear weapon is not comparable to a firearm at all. We both know they aren't, thats not what we're arguing about.
User avatar #106 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
And my thing about the military was how it takes months for us to be trusted on how to react to situations and handle weapons. Hell, we had an entire week of how to clear rooms without even flagging your own team member. Why would you trust a civilian that has almost no weapon knowledge in handling a gas station robbery or even handling someone else being held at gunpoint?
User avatar #108 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
A civilian is not going to be required to be as good with a firearm as someone in the military. That's ridiculous. I would rather trust a civilian with a gun trying to stop a robbery then a civilian without a gun trying to stop a robbery.
User avatar #113 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
But a robbery is pretty uncommon. I'm talking about how an untrained citizen that doesn't know how to handle a weapon will react to a stressful situation. Like a rowdy drunk.
User avatar #103 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
The fact you are saying they probably would is a slippery slope. Even mentioning that is a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on something that could hypothetically happen if event A happens. That is a slippery slope. There is no supporting evidence for them doing what you are saying, so once again...slippery slope.
Also, a nuclear weapon is comparable. They are both considered arms. Unless, gasp, you are saying that the constitution shouldn't be taken literally and should have restrictions on certain rights in there? Times change and so do the laws. My entire point was that the constitution did not account for future technological advances with that blanket statement and our modern day government imposed their own laws/regulations on top of our given rights in the constitution, but because you agree with them there you have no problem with "ur freddumbs" being taken away. What I am saying is, why do you have a problem with something as low as taking classes to publicly carry when hundreds of arms have already been banned? Society has changed so much it's not even funny.
User avatar #107 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
I have a problem with it because it isnt necessary. If someone is not competent enough to defend themselves in a situation, that is their problem and theirs alone. Why should I be forced to take a course because other people might be incompetent?

Your defintion of slippery slope is wrong. Its like I jump out of a plane, and say I'm going to hit the ground, and someone says "haha slippery slope. You're assuming you'll hit the ground based on the event that you're free-falling. You can't know that"
Its not illogical to assume that they would want to just keep restricting permits.
User avatar #112 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It is necessary in many people's opinion and mine. People overreact to situations. I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar. That is what I'm referring to, not people being mugged in back allies. Why do you think cops are getting so much shit lately? It's because a select few of them have handled situations poorly (Not talking about those niggers getting shot) with weapons. All of it stemmed back on their training and how cops should be trained more. So, why are civilians allowed to handle situations with no training at all? I've heard multiple people with permits say they would shoot anyone who even touched them and claim it was in self defense because they feared for their life. People freak out, especially those not trained.



a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things

That is the definition of a slippery slope. Nothing more and nothing less. You are implying that things will get worse in regards to restrictions just because one restriction was passed. That's a slippery slope. I also can't believe you are so dumb to sit here and compare a hypothetical situation to "If I am falling I will hit the ground". That backs up it being a slippery slope even more.

In the end, I can guarantee you are incompetent with handling situations with weapons. Keep believing you know how to handle situations "cuz u wuer raized in da cuntry" while others take months to years out of their lives to train for what we are talking about. Just another faggot that thinks owning weapons and buying a few tactical items for his AR means he should be SF.
User avatar #136 - obviouscaptain (07/02/2015) [-]
I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar.
Whats the problem? Someone assaults you, and you defend yourself. You act like a punch cant be deadly. Especially when someone is drunk and may not stop once you hit the ground.
You also act like its civilians responding to situations like police, while it is not like that at all. Its the situation is there, you either have a gun to defend yourself or you dont have a gun.
i never said I would be 100% competent, or anywhere near the level of someone who was actually trained by the military, but thats not the argument. Its if you are safer with a gun versus not having one.

I dont know where your getting all this where you think i said I was some sick operator or something, and assuming I have an AR. You're making so many assumptions its unreal.
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
#75 - meant guns, not guys. 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
#74 - All that projecting at the end. First went shooting when I was…  [+] (18 new replies) 07/01/2015 on Funs 0
User avatar #120 - Dropkicksxxx (07/01/2015) [-]
I've shot since I was about 5, starting with a .22, and can tear down and rebuild all of my own guns. I've hunted since I was 9 and have shot damn near every caliber available. My problem, most people haven't even thought of doing any of that, then they wanna go out and get a cc permit and waltz around with a .45 acting like they're going to singlehandedly save their town, when in all reality they will not have one clue whatsoever as what to do if a situation ever does arise, I mean you can literally walk around with a gun not knowing one bit of how to shoot it, then what, someone does threaten you or your family and you rip a couple shots out, kill the guy threatening you and the girl behind him and maybe that kid walking past or have a round go through the a will killing a baby, all because you didn't know what you were doing with a gun. You should most definitely have to take some sort of course, after getting my cc permit and realizing it only took 20 minutes and 20$ I started to think about the fact that I could have bought my gun and ammo, and had gotten my permit all within a couple hours on the same day. I'm all for gun rights, and being able to carry, but not everyone is competent enough to do so.
User avatar #76 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It really is, also to themselves. Should at least go through courses on how to react to violence before being allowed to carry in public. I don't see how this would effect any one who is confident in their skills in regards to safety with weapons. Especially someone who "grew up in the country" (as if that means shit).
User avatar #77 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
It would effect people because now they have to take time out of their day, pay money, and take a test just to prove to the government that their competent enough to be given one of their rights?
Just because you're scared of something doesn't mean other people should lose their rights.
Only reason I brought up how long I've been around guns is because for some reason you assumed that I've got no experience with them.
User avatar #80 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Shooting at paper targets means nothing in regards to how to react to situations with weapons. It takes months to years to be fully trained on that and apparently you believe it is logical to just hand out permits because someone has a clean record. Also, I am still assuming you have no experience in regards to how to handle situations with weapons. People that train for years still mess up in combat and back in the states (cops). I 100% am backing up making it harder to gain access to one of your rights. People will still have the right to carry, but will have to prove themselves in class. Same thing for college. People have a god given right to do many things, but a lot of the time it requires training and putting time into it. Also, I love how you're stupid enough to believe people would be losing their rights because of having to prove their competence. Go back to the woods.
User avatar #82 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Shooting at paper targets means nothing in regards to how to react to situations with weapons.
People will still have the right to carry, but will have to prove themselves in class.
Okay so shooting at paper targets means nothing, but they have to prove themselves in a class now? How much will that cost? Who will pay? If you want it to be as thorough as you want so you know someone will 100% be able to handle the situation, it would be disgustingly expensive and time consuming, as you said cops get lots of training and still fuck up. This would mean only rich people/people with lots of time are allowed to carry, instead of everyone.

People have a god given right to do many things, but a lot of the time it requires training and putting time into it.
I dont know where you even got this from. Is it like a personal quote or something? Rights are rights. You dont have to work for them, you just get them for being alive.

Also, I love how you're stupid enough to believe people would be losing their rights because of having to prove their competence.
It would. What would stop the government from making the test hard as fuck so no-one passes? Congratulations, you just banned ccing. You're letting the government decide who gets to have a weapon for self-defense and who doesn't.

Also not sure what you mean about that college thing. If you think college is even slightly difficult, I have bad news for you.
User avatar #90 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and bring your own ammo. This isn't about getting them on par with our infantry or cops, just basic weapon safety and how to react to certain situations. By your logic we should just entirely remove any checks on people getting permits and allow criminals to carry as well because in the constitution it didn't differentiate. Quit treating the constitution like it is something handed down by a deity. The constitution can be changed and maybe it should sometime in the future. Times change and a document written by a few men hundreds of years ago should not be the go-to for everything in regards to how modern society works. I honestly believe you should have to go through at least a month of decently hard training on weapons safety, reacting to situations, etc before being allowed to carry in public. You disagree with that, why? Because people have to take time of their days to learn how to handle one of the most deadly creations in human history? Oh wow, that's so bad man. I also love the slippery slope you threw in at the end.
In the end, military forces are still not trusted most of the time with weapons around people by their chain of command. Hence not being allowed to keep your weapons even on post, not even being given ammo to go deal with riots, etc. I 100% do not trust you hick ass publicly carrying and I don't care if it would be a minor inconvenience for you to take some classes. If you don't want to do them then don't get a permit.
User avatar #95 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Wouldn't have to pay too much, just a few weekend classes and bring your own ammo.
How do you know it wouldn't cost alot?

I honestly believe you should have to go through at least a month of decently hard training on weapons safety, reacting to situations, etc before being allowed to carry in public.
Why? I dont see why people should have to prove themselves.

It's not a slippery slope. They have direction connection. The government starts issuing permits for cc, they decide they don't want people to have them, they slowly issue less and less until their are none.
User avatar #98 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
Because it's a hypothetical proposition from me to the government. I'm saying that it shouldn't cost too much and now you are acting as if it does cost a lot. A lot of classes don't cost too much, especially if you want to take them to achieve something.

Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?

That was literally the most perfect slippery slope I have ever seen. Keep in school, kids. You're implying event B will happen because event A happened. That's exactly what a slippery slope is.

Also, I can't believe you are so ignorant that you don't understand that there are already dozens of limitations on this "right" of ours. Do you have the right to own a bunker buster or a nuclear weapon? They are both arms, so why not?
User avatar #100 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
Okay, why should someone joining the military have to prove themselves?
Because the military has certain demands that make a good solider. The solider must be able to do certain things, that's why they have tests.

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question.

It is not. There is zero way the government couldn't do exactly what I said, have a hard test and not hand out permits. It is a very real possibility if you give them that much power, so why would you risk it?

A nuclear weapon is not comparable to a firearm at all. We both know they aren't, thats not what we're arguing about.
User avatar #106 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
And my thing about the military was how it takes months for us to be trusted on how to react to situations and handle weapons. Hell, we had an entire week of how to clear rooms without even flagging your own team member. Why would you trust a civilian that has almost no weapon knowledge in handling a gas station robbery or even handling someone else being held at gunpoint?
User avatar #108 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
A civilian is not going to be required to be as good with a firearm as someone in the military. That's ridiculous. I would rather trust a civilian with a gun trying to stop a robbery then a civilian without a gun trying to stop a robbery.
User avatar #113 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
But a robbery is pretty uncommon. I'm talking about how an untrained citizen that doesn't know how to handle a weapon will react to a stressful situation. Like a rowdy drunk.
User avatar #103 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
The fact you are saying they probably would is a slippery slope. Even mentioning that is a slippery slope. You're basing your argument on something that could hypothetically happen if event A happens. That is a slippery slope. There is no supporting evidence for them doing what you are saying, so once again...slippery slope.
Also, a nuclear weapon is comparable. They are both considered arms. Unless, gasp, you are saying that the constitution shouldn't be taken literally and should have restrictions on certain rights in there? Times change and so do the laws. My entire point was that the constitution did not account for future technological advances with that blanket statement and our modern day government imposed their own laws/regulations on top of our given rights in the constitution, but because you agree with them there you have no problem with "ur freddumbs" being taken away. What I am saying is, why do you have a problem with something as low as taking classes to publicly carry when hundreds of arms have already been banned? Society has changed so much it's not even funny.
User avatar #107 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
I have a problem with it because it isnt necessary. If someone is not competent enough to defend themselves in a situation, that is their problem and theirs alone. Why should I be forced to take a course because other people might be incompetent?

Your defintion of slippery slope is wrong. Its like I jump out of a plane, and say I'm going to hit the ground, and someone says "haha slippery slope. You're assuming you'll hit the ground based on the event that you're free-falling. You can't know that"
Its not illogical to assume that they would want to just keep restricting permits.
User avatar #112 - clannadqs (07/01/2015) [-]
It is necessary in many people's opinion and mine. People overreact to situations. I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar. That is what I'm referring to, not people being mugged in back allies. Why do you think cops are getting so much shit lately? It's because a select few of them have handled situations poorly (Not talking about those niggers getting shot) with weapons. All of it stemmed back on their training and how cops should be trained more. So, why are civilians allowed to handle situations with no training at all? I've heard multiple people with permits say they would shoot anyone who even touched them and claim it was in self defense because they feared for their life. People freak out, especially those not trained.



a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things

That is the definition of a slippery slope. Nothing more and nothing less. You are implying that things will get worse in regards to restrictions just because one restriction was passed. That's a slippery slope. I also can't believe you are so dumb to sit here and compare a hypothetical situation to "If I am falling I will hit the ground". That backs up it being a slippery slope even more.

In the end, I can guarantee you are incompetent with handling situations with weapons. Keep believing you know how to handle situations "cuz u wuer raized in da cuntry" while others take months to years out of their lives to train for what we are talking about. Just another faggot that thinks owning weapons and buying a few tactical items for his AR means he should be SF.
User avatar #136 - obviouscaptain (07/02/2015) [-]
I'm willing to bet many people have shot others in "self-defense" over a petty punch outside of a bar.
Whats the problem? Someone assaults you, and you defend yourself. You act like a punch cant be deadly. Especially when someone is drunk and may not stop once you hit the ground.
You also act like its civilians responding to situations like police, while it is not like that at all. Its the situation is there, you either have a gun to defend yourself or you dont have a gun.
i never said I would be 100% competent, or anywhere near the level of someone who was actually trained by the military, but thats not the argument. Its if you are safer with a gun versus not having one.

I dont know where your getting all this where you think i said I was some sick operator or something, and assuming I have an AR. You're making so many assumptions its unreal.
User avatar #137 - clannadqs (07/02/2015) [-]
Dude, you literally let everything fly over your head and didn't answer or reply to anything I said other than going after a simple thing like bar fights. Your arguments is just you nitpicking what you want to go after because you know you can't reply to the rest.
User avatar #75 - obviouscaptain (07/01/2015) [-]
meant guns, not guys.
[ 250 Total ]

user's friends

User avatar panaotizz    

items

Total unique items point value: 210 / Total items point value: 1940

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)