Upload
Login or register

ohaibrooooh

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/16/2011
Last Login:7/26/2016
Location:Somewhere Out There
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#4424
Comment Ranking:#8902
Highest Content Rank:#739
Highest Comment Rank:#628
Content Thumbs: 5148 total,  5724 ,  576
Comment Thumbs: 6395 total,  7349 ,  954
Content Level Progress: 35% (35/100)
Level 145 Content: Faptastic → Level 146 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 80% (80/100)
Level 262 Comments: Pure Win → Level 263 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:260842
Times Content Favorited:290 times
Total Comments Made:1297
FJ Points:10343
Favorite Tags: lol (5) | Asian (3) | shit (3) | trump (3) | a (2) | and (2) | fucking (2) | i (2) | nigga (2)
"I wanna go to a fortune teller, dressed as a fortune teller. I would be like... 'You're about to become slightly annoyed very soon." -Demetri Martin

  • Views: 36820
    Thumbs Up 1608 Thumbs Down 48 Total: +1560
    Comments: 183
    Favorites: 93
    Uploaded: 02/18/16
    #BasedMom #BasedMom
  • Views: 32163
    Thumbs Up 887 Thumbs Down 36 Total: +851
    Comments: 108
    Favorites: 40
    Uploaded: 07/18/13
    Something Worth Covering Something Worth Covering
  • Views: 6545
    Thumbs Up 194 Thumbs Down 24 Total: +170
    Comments: 18
    Favorites: 6
    Uploaded: 11/13/11
    Tiny FWP Comp Tiny FWP Comp
  • Views: 6690
    Thumbs Up 142 Thumbs Down 16 Total: +126
    Comments: 8
    Favorites: 6
    Uploaded: 05/18/13
    Apply Gently. Apply Gently.
  • Views: 7157
    Thumbs Up 118 Thumbs Down 14 Total: +104
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 3
    Uploaded: 11/21/11
    Baby Skyrim Baby Skyrim
  • Views: 4053
    Thumbs Up 109 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +100
    Comments: 8
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 08/06/12
    Spiderbro Spiderbro
First2[ 12 ]

HD Gifs / WebMs

  • Views: 1787
    Thumbs Up 22 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +18
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 06/01/16
    Absolutely kek Absolutely kek
  • Views: 3869
    Thumbs Up 58 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +47
    Comments: 21
    Favorites: 6
    Uploaded: 03/13/16
    Trump qt3.14 Trump qt3.14

latest user's comments

#105 - Reminder that Trump is playing 4D Chess.  [+] (4 new replies) 07/20/2016 on First Ladies +4
User avatar
#195 - mayorspookums (07/20/2016) [-]
He could end civilization? You really think that?
User avatar
#197 - toxicwarning (07/20/2016) [-]
Well, technically, any president of the United States could end civilization. It happening even in Trump's case is unlikely, however. Just because I link an article, doesn't mean that the names of the articles is my personal opinion. I linked them for their content.
User avatar
#205 - mayorspookums (07/20/2016) [-]
Fair enough, but I doubt anyone really has the balls to be the end of civilization as we know it. Also, it reads like the author of the book is just over exaggerating, because Trump said he had written the book. “If he could lie about that on Day One when it was so easily refuted he is likely to lie about anything,” Schwartz said. That's a slippery slope, isn't it?
#36 - Picture 07/19/2016 on gremmy +6
#35 - WE  [+] (3 new replies) 06/24/2016 on Oh shit +7
#41 - flnonymousseven (06/24/2016) [-]
ARE THE CRYSTAL GEMS
#42 - blokrokker (06/24/2016) [-]
#48 - iitoxictz (06/24/2016) [-]
#35 - Try Napata. His stuff is bretty gud.  [+] (1 new reply) 06/23/2016 on Mah porn +1
User avatar
#36 - yugiohkris (06/23/2016) [-]
Yeah I know about vanilla drawn hentai, sorry I meant animated hentai.
#104 - (boohoo muh racial slurs. It's the internet.) >gun…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/23/2016 on Constitutional Dissonance +4
User avatar
#106 - inverseiconoclasm (06/23/2016) [-]
"it's the internet" is no excuse for being a racist asshole. I hate the thought police as much as anyone, but the reality is that they're only effective because there are racists for them to fight. If fewer people were blatant racist assholes on the internet, they'd have a harder time trying to convince people that it needs to be controlled.

Whatever. I'm tired of arguing. There's no point anyway, since our minds are already made up about this subject. You want to live in the wild west, I don't.
#97 - >civic, not federal property This is still placing fire…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Constitutional Dissonance +6
User avatar
#99 - inverseiconoclasm (06/23/2016) [-]
">civic, not federal property
This is still placing firearms (private property), that the people do themselves, in the care of a government, which is still a foolish idea regardless. "

I also said that this wouldn't be mandatory. I said that they would keep them there if they had nowhere else to keep them: ie: didn't own a gunsafe.

">muh small arms vs tank n shit
This is a much more complex issue for the government than it is for our hypothetical rebels. A government has to quell a rebellion, not outright destroy their vital infrastructure, and if a government decides to roll out big guns, it will likely draw out international attention, and possibly intervention. "

Any rebellion AT ALL will draw international attention, and if anything, violent resistance will only justify the force used to put it down. Tienanmen square also proves that a truly oppressive regime won't waste the time trying to patch their image, and will go straight to tanks when resistance arises.

"You can have all the technological advantages you want, but in the end, it's manpower that's needed, and that's a big issue when you have a volunteer military.
Would you follow orders to bomb a city or town where supposed rebels are, when there is a distinct possibility your friends/family/lover could be there? There would be defections in droves in all chains of command, those who don't can also be potential collaborators.
Moreover, you have also forgotten what a bunch of ragheads in the Middle East can do with a bunch of outdated equipment. "

Sure, which is another reason why it would be hard for a hypothetical regime to become oppressive in the first place, since you'd need foreign soldiers or mercs to keep order. Naturalized armies won't oppress their own people, neither will the police force. Yes, we've seen what happens when rebel groups are armed with outdated equipment. However, we tend to fight these groups because they are out there trying to repress their fellow man. What makes you think a western rebel army would be any different? Also, racial slur noted.

"Also, criminals will be criminals, if they can't get weapons one way, they will obtain one regardless, via illegal means, or they will find an alternative. There will always be a demand, which has to be satisfied in some fashion. "

Sure, but just because they will find a way anyway doesn't justify the defeatist attitude of just letting them get a hold of it with ease. You don't hear about mass shootings happening in the UK or France as often as you do in the US, now do you? Hell, with this attitude, why try to prevent crime at all? Why control the border at all if they're just going to find a way inside anyway?

" give the neighbors the ability to fight back, not sit there and pray. "

Tell me, how many times have shootings been prevented because they tried to attack someone who had a gun? Most of these shootings don't even happen in their home, where they will more than likely keep their gun. Not only that, but not everyone goes around in constant fear and readiness of having to protect themselves. Do you really want everyone to go around carrying a gun, constantly paranoid of someone shooting at them? Is that the society you want to live in?
User avatar
#104 - ohaibrooooh (06/23/2016) [-]
(boohoo muh racial slurs. It's the internet.)

>gun bank point
So? What if it isn't mandatory or not? It's still a stupid idea regardless to trust any particularly valuable private property in the hands of any government, be it local or federal.

>muh tienanmen
Do take note that Tienanmen square was a protest by unarmed citizens, which then led to the massacre, and the enactment of MARTIAL LAW in parts of Beijing.
You also must note that communications technology is quite advanced today, word of a violent putdown will draw extreme amounts of attention in a very short amount of time. This will put the narrative and moral high ground on the rebels side.

>that third point
We're still talking about IF the American government happens to be oppressive enough to suddenly not-guarantee the rights of it's citizens.

>western rebels could be no different than mideastern terrorists
Because Americans generally have a non-Islamic set of morals and ideals? Americans in general have a good idea of how our government is supposed to be run (a la elected representatives that cater to the needs of its people) The United States was built from the ground up several centuries ago with this ideal and it has held up to the present.

>muh defeatist attitude
I did not say that laws should not be enforced at all. This ties in to my point at the end of my last post, where your average, law-abiding citizen should be able to defend themselves and those around them with return fire, if necessary. Because police response times, while steadily improving, are still a long way away from instant arrival and response.

>muh UK n France
Because they're not being reported on by the media, or actively being covered up because muh Muslims, such as the Cologne rapes. Also, do take note we have a vastly larger population and quite a bit of crime in the inner cities, such as LA and Chicago, which tie into the need to address the source, not the method.
And if crimes aren't being done with guns, they're being done with knives, blunt weapons, brute strength etc. Criminals WILL find a way, it's up to us to hold the defensive advantage, or a level playing ground at least.

>the last point
What is Concealed/Open Carry? Many potential shootings, robberies and other crimes have been stopped from just a defensive brandishing that results in no deaths, sometimes if you don't count the criminal. If you need a recent example, look at the South Carolina incident where a 13-year old kid defended his home from two robbers twice his age, or the recent post here on FJ where an old man in an office or casino scared off two robbers without a single innocent casualty.
Moreover, shootings are WAY more unlikely to happen if CC is a more normal aspect. Being able to carry also carries the effect of deterrence, along with instant action.

>muh fear n paranoia
Better safe than sorry. It's the world we live in. I wouldn't mind not living in that society if criminals don't exist, but alas, they do.
User avatar
#106 - inverseiconoclasm (06/23/2016) [-]
"it's the internet" is no excuse for being a racist asshole. I hate the thought police as much as anyone, but the reality is that they're only effective because there are racists for them to fight. If fewer people were blatant racist assholes on the internet, they'd have a harder time trying to convince people that it needs to be controlled.

Whatever. I'm tired of arguing. There's no point anyway, since our minds are already made up about this subject. You want to live in the wild west, I don't.
#67 - I really hope you're trolling. >gun bank This …  [+] (5 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Constitutional Dissonance +17
#84 - inverseiconoclasm (06/23/2016) [-]
">gun bank
This is a stupid idea. It presents an easy target for an oppressive regime or criminal group with enough balls to destroy and/or take over. The point of having an armed citizenry is that weapons are hard to track down and forcibly take. "

What if I told you they'd be civic property, instead of Federal property? These would be owned by the counties, not by the Federal Government. Also, a lot of good small arms will do you against tanks, drones, and fighter jets, but sure, having all the guns in one spot is our biggest worry against an oppressive regime. Not only that, but they had these during the revolutionary war. In fact the British marched on Concord to take one.

">the constitution says nothing about regulation
What part of: "Shall not be infringed" did you not understand?"

I hope you realize that there are other rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to us by the government, specifically the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Letting any random psycho get a hold of a tool designed to kill would infringe upon the your rights as well. Frankly, I think this is far more likely to happen than an oppressive regime replacing the US Government. (inb4 waaah, it's already oppressive, oh poor me, shut up)

">we really need to do something about the shooting issue
How about doing something about the source of the shootings? (a la niggers, mental health, Islam) "

Treating ALL parts of the problem would be what we need to do, not just part of it. Sure, Islam is an issue (gasp, I bet you never thought you would hear a liberal say that!), mental health is also, and yes, I do believe the poorer areas that blacks live in should be helped. They need education and venues other than violence for a future. However, I don't think that's something that can be done by the federal government.

">you don't need an AR-15
>don't need
Who are you to say what I do or don't need, I decide what I need to defend myself, not you, and especially not the government."

I'm one of your fellow citizens, that's who. My rights deserve to be respected as much as yours. If that means you aren't allowed to turn your house into a fortress then so be it. People should have the right not to worry about some random psycho having a damned machine gun in the next house over.
#97 - ohaibrooooh (06/23/2016) [-]
>civic, not federal property
This is still placing firearms (private property), that the people do themselves, in the care of a government, which is still a foolish idea regardless.

>muh small arms vs tank n shit
This is a much more complex issue for the government than it is for our hypothetical rebels. A government has to quell a rebellion, not outright destroy their vital infrastructure, and if a government decides to roll out big guns, it will likely draw out international attention, and possibly intervention.
You can have all the technological advantages you want, but in the end, it's manpower that's needed, and that's a big issue when you have a volunteer military.
Would you follow orders to bomb a city or town where supposed rebels are, when there is a distinct possibility your friends/family/lover could be there? There would be defections in droves in all chains of command, those who don't can also be potential collaborators.
Moreover, you have also forgotten what a bunch of ragheads in the Middle East can do with a bunch of outdated equipment.

>other rights guaranteed to us by the government
And if the government just so happens to overstep those boundaries and suddenly our rights are not guaranteed? The United States is generally founded upon the principle that the government can and should be overthrown by the people, whether by the system or by force, if the government proves to be unabiding by the will of the people.
Also, criminals will be criminals, if they can't get weapons one way, they will obtain one regardless, via illegal means, or they will find an alternative. There will always be a demand, which has to be satisfied in some fashion.

Your third point is something we can agree on. But the Feds could help with better funding and the locals could elect a better government.

>that fourth point
Take note of: "I decide what I need, not you." Like how I can't tell you what you need or don't need.
Moreover, owning "machine guns" are more common than you think, depending on your definition of "machine guns" or "assault rifles". If that person that has a machine gun that you're so scared about goes full autist, at least give the neighbors the ability to fight back, not sit there and pray.
Take note of the Charles Whitman shooting in 1966. The police were basically outgunned, the civilians got their firearms from their vehicles, and helped the police return fire.
User avatar
#99 - inverseiconoclasm (06/23/2016) [-]
">civic, not federal property
This is still placing firearms (private property), that the people do themselves, in the care of a government, which is still a foolish idea regardless. "

I also said that this wouldn't be mandatory. I said that they would keep them there if they had nowhere else to keep them: ie: didn't own a gunsafe.

">muh small arms vs tank n shit
This is a much more complex issue for the government than it is for our hypothetical rebels. A government has to quell a rebellion, not outright destroy their vital infrastructure, and if a government decides to roll out big guns, it will likely draw out international attention, and possibly intervention. "

Any rebellion AT ALL will draw international attention, and if anything, violent resistance will only justify the force used to put it down. Tienanmen square also proves that a truly oppressive regime won't waste the time trying to patch their image, and will go straight to tanks when resistance arises.

"You can have all the technological advantages you want, but in the end, it's manpower that's needed, and that's a big issue when you have a volunteer military.
Would you follow orders to bomb a city or town where supposed rebels are, when there is a distinct possibility your friends/family/lover could be there? There would be defections in droves in all chains of command, those who don't can also be potential collaborators.
Moreover, you have also forgotten what a bunch of ragheads in the Middle East can do with a bunch of outdated equipment. "

Sure, which is another reason why it would be hard for a hypothetical regime to become oppressive in the first place, since you'd need foreign soldiers or mercs to keep order. Naturalized armies won't oppress their own people, neither will the police force. Yes, we've seen what happens when rebel groups are armed with outdated equipment. However, we tend to fight these groups because they are out there trying to repress their fellow man. What makes you think a western rebel army would be any different? Also, racial slur noted.

"Also, criminals will be criminals, if they can't get weapons one way, they will obtain one regardless, via illegal means, or they will find an alternative. There will always be a demand, which has to be satisfied in some fashion. "

Sure, but just because they will find a way anyway doesn't justify the defeatist attitude of just letting them get a hold of it with ease. You don't hear about mass shootings happening in the UK or France as often as you do in the US, now do you? Hell, with this attitude, why try to prevent crime at all? Why control the border at all if they're just going to find a way inside anyway?

" give the neighbors the ability to fight back, not sit there and pray. "

Tell me, how many times have shootings been prevented because they tried to attack someone who had a gun? Most of these shootings don't even happen in their home, where they will more than likely keep their gun. Not only that, but not everyone goes around in constant fear and readiness of having to protect themselves. Do you really want everyone to go around carrying a gun, constantly paranoid of someone shooting at them? Is that the society you want to live in?
User avatar
#104 - ohaibrooooh (06/23/2016) [-]
(boohoo muh racial slurs. It's the internet.)

>gun bank point
So? What if it isn't mandatory or not? It's still a stupid idea regardless to trust any particularly valuable private property in the hands of any government, be it local or federal.

>muh tienanmen
Do take note that Tienanmen square was a protest by unarmed citizens, which then led to the massacre, and the enactment of MARTIAL LAW in parts of Beijing.
You also must note that communications technology is quite advanced today, word of a violent putdown will draw extreme amounts of attention in a very short amount of time. This will put the narrative and moral high ground on the rebels side.

>that third point
We're still talking about IF the American government happens to be oppressive enough to suddenly not-guarantee the rights of it's citizens.

>western rebels could be no different than mideastern terrorists
Because Americans generally have a non-Islamic set of morals and ideals? Americans in general have a good idea of how our government is supposed to be run (a la elected representatives that cater to the needs of its people) The United States was built from the ground up several centuries ago with this ideal and it has held up to the present.

>muh defeatist attitude
I did not say that laws should not be enforced at all. This ties in to my point at the end of my last post, where your average, law-abiding citizen should be able to defend themselves and those around them with return fire, if necessary. Because police response times, while steadily improving, are still a long way away from instant arrival and response.

>muh UK n France
Because they're not being reported on by the media, or actively being covered up because muh Muslims, such as the Cologne rapes. Also, do take note we have a vastly larger population and quite a bit of crime in the inner cities, such as LA and Chicago, which tie into the need to address the source, not the method.
And if crimes aren't being done with guns, they're being done with knives, blunt weapons, brute strength etc. Criminals WILL find a way, it's up to us to hold the defensive advantage, or a level playing ground at least.

>the last point
What is Concealed/Open Carry? Many potential shootings, robberies and other crimes have been stopped from just a defensive brandishing that results in no deaths, sometimes if you don't count the criminal. If you need a recent example, look at the South Carolina incident where a 13-year old kid defended his home from two robbers twice his age, or the recent post here on FJ where an old man in an office or casino scared off two robbers without a single innocent casualty.
Moreover, shootings are WAY more unlikely to happen if CC is a more normal aspect. Being able to carry also carries the effect of deterrence, along with instant action.

>muh fear n paranoia
Better safe than sorry. It's the world we live in. I wouldn't mind not living in that society if criminals don't exist, but alas, they do.
User avatar
#106 - inverseiconoclasm (06/23/2016) [-]
"it's the internet" is no excuse for being a racist asshole. I hate the thought police as much as anyone, but the reality is that they're only effective because there are racists for them to fight. If fewer people were blatant racist assholes on the internet, they'd have a harder time trying to convince people that it needs to be controlled.

Whatever. I'm tired of arguing. There's no point anyway, since our minds are already made up about this subject. You want to live in the wild west, I don't.
#58 - Picture 06/23/2016 on Box +1
#45 - Nice roll  [+] (2 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Box 0
#57 - notmadguy (06/23/2016) [-]
**notmadguy used "*roll picture*"**
**notmadguy rolled image** im a fucking faggot
#58 - ohaibrooooh (06/23/2016) [-]
#199 - When the butthurt is just right 05/30/2016 on Wagiangorc Zoch Kictuphu +2
[ 1295 Total ]