Upload
Login or register

sovereignsunkown

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:6/27/2012
Last Login:2/09/2014
Location:Canada
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 105 total,  122 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 751 total,  950 ,  199
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 10 Content: New Here → Level 11 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 176 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:2
Content Views:14546
Total Comments Made:358
FJ Points:906

latest user's comments

#99 - but both of those bands vocal styles constitute whining. i… 01/23/2013 on Justin Burn 0
#129 - because they're unsettling as ****. 01/23/2013 on If only I could 0
#20 - common misconception. you will NOT die quickly from being shot…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/19/2013 on guns +7
User avatar
#40 - bakedbread (01/19/2013) [-]
bullets mushroom on impact and can cause massive internal damage especially if it fragments, theres alot of area on your body where a bullet wound can kill you in a hurry, besides theres restrictions on the size of a blade you can carry, a 3-4 inch blade is deaadly by all means but not nearly as deady as a firearm, ive nearly decapitated a deer with a .243 which is relatively small, cant do that with a knife
User avatar
#70 - dadukesta (01/19/2013) [-]
123 people were shot in the Aurora Colorado shooting, only 12 died.
User avatar
#153 - bakedbread (01/20/2013) [-]
true, but in most incidents where you would get shot would be from a robbery or something similar where it would be much closer range, and it really isnt hard to somewhat accurately fire a weapon without aiming in close ranges, and any larger caliber weapon can quite easily tear your internal organs to shreds, my buddy shot himself in the leg with a 9mm and just that almost killed him it went right past a major artery
#154 - dadukesta (01/20/2013) [-]
Say that to Rick.
#646 - ehh, i'm thinking more a "french revolution" type th… 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#610 - honestly i'm pretty sure America's laws and governments are ju… 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama +1
#600 - the constitution was intended to be revised every 15 years by … 01/18/2013 on Oh Obama 0
#185 - that's not a need arguement, that's saying "there is no n…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/17/2013 on good guy reagan 0
User avatar
#186 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
As for option A, that's all the goddamn reason I need to own a babby-killin machine gun, who are you to say I'm not responsible enough to own something?

Option B: Again, you have no right to say what is or isn't appropriate for me to have as long as what I am doing with it doesn't harm anyone

Option C: You can kill someone with just about anything, more people drown every year than are killed by guns, we should ban water then huh? Rifles are used in an extremely small amount of gun crimes, and an even smaller amount of murders. The things you say are "perfectly reasonable" for home defense? They kill more people every year than any other gun around.

And then there's option D: Almost every shooting sports associating uses the AR15 platform in their competitions.
#183 - i'm well aware of the slippery slope fallacy. i'm not saying s…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/17/2013 on good guy reagan 0
User avatar
#184 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
There you go again with that "need" argument. You don't need a computer, you don't need a car, you don't need shit. All you need is food, water and protection from the elements. There is literally no functional difference between an AR15 and say, a Mini-14. The difference is purely cosmetic. It looks scary, therefor it must be banned
User avatar
#185 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
that's not a need arguement, that's saying "there is no non-harmful purpose." stop attributing things to my arguements that i'm not saying.
i suggest you take a look at Canada's gun laws for a better example; any firearm that can not be used for a legitimate purpose (like hunting or the like) is generally illegal, because the only reason to own such a weapon is to
A) "just to have it" (if you have such a weapon, what's to say it will not be stolen, or improperly used by a family member...say a curious child, perhaps?)
B) defend yourself (which is overkill. get a 9mm handgun or a 12 guage or some otherperfectly reasonable weapon for a civilian to own)
C) kill people. (i don't even think i have to justify this one)
it makes quite a bit of sense that weapons of this sort should not be available to the general public
User avatar
#186 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
As for option A, that's all the goddamn reason I need to own a babby-killin machine gun, who are you to say I'm not responsible enough to own something?

Option B: Again, you have no right to say what is or isn't appropriate for me to have as long as what I am doing with it doesn't harm anyone

Option C: You can kill someone with just about anything, more people drown every year than are killed by guns, we should ban water then huh? Rifles are used in an extremely small amount of gun crimes, and an even smaller amount of murders. The things you say are "perfectly reasonable" for home defense? They kill more people every year than any other gun around.

And then there's option D: Almost every shooting sports associating uses the AR15 platform in their competitions.
#181 - it's a literal interpretation there. "arms" does not…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/17/2013 on good guy reagan 0
User avatar
#182 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Civilians will never own nukes, large bombs, or anything like that so don't even go there. Plus that argument in itself is a logical fallacy. Just because someone has something doesn't mean they'll use it. People are allowed to own tanks and attack helicopters, but when's the last time you heard about someone killing with one?
User avatar
#183 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
i'm well aware of the slippery slope fallacy. i'm not saying someone is ACTUALLY going to do that, but i'm saying that the constitution does TECHNICALLY allow for that, which is a huge flaw. the "reasonable" limits clause (relating to the second ammendment) would more imply that restrictions are in place for civilians to own guns that have no purpose other than killing people. there is literally no reason for a civilian to own any weapon more powerful than a hunting rifle, outside of bona-fide gun collections.
User avatar
#184 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
There you go again with that "need" argument. You don't need a computer, you don't need a car, you don't need shit. All you need is food, water and protection from the elements. There is literally no functional difference between an AR15 and say, a Mini-14. The difference is purely cosmetic. It looks scary, therefor it must be banned
User avatar
#185 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
that's not a need arguement, that's saying "there is no non-harmful purpose." stop attributing things to my arguements that i'm not saying.
i suggest you take a look at Canada's gun laws for a better example; any firearm that can not be used for a legitimate purpose (like hunting or the like) is generally illegal, because the only reason to own such a weapon is to
A) "just to have it" (if you have such a weapon, what's to say it will not be stolen, or improperly used by a family member...say a curious child, perhaps?)
B) defend yourself (which is overkill. get a 9mm handgun or a 12 guage or some otherperfectly reasonable weapon for a civilian to own)
C) kill people. (i don't even think i have to justify this one)
it makes quite a bit of sense that weapons of this sort should not be available to the general public
User avatar
#186 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
As for option A, that's all the goddamn reason I need to own a babby-killin machine gun, who are you to say I'm not responsible enough to own something?

Option B: Again, you have no right to say what is or isn't appropriate for me to have as long as what I am doing with it doesn't harm anyone

Option C: You can kill someone with just about anything, more people drown every year than are killed by guns, we should ban water then huh? Rifles are used in an extremely small amount of gun crimes, and an even smaller amount of murders. The things you say are "perfectly reasonable" for home defense? They kill more people every year than any other gun around.

And then there's option D: Almost every shooting sports associating uses the AR15 platform in their competitions.
#122 - i was under the impression that the american government's educ…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/16/2013 on good guy reagan 0
User avatar
#148 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
It does not say "weapon". It says arms, as in firearms. And as for your second point, you're using the same logic as people who think that people will marry turtles just because gays can marry
User avatar
#181 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
it's a literal interpretation there. "arms" does not mean guns, it means weapons.
i'm saying that it's a flaw to have a clause in any constitution that does not set reasonable limits on the rights given, because that's very, very dangerous, because at that point, you can abuse those constitutional rights in all kinds of ways. For example, people getting away with anti-gay hate speech by using "Freedom of religion", which there are multiple documented cases of. i'm not saying a reasonable limits clause should be placed in specifically to check the second amendment; i'm saying it should be a requirement of any charter of rights and freedoms.
User avatar
#182 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
Civilians will never own nukes, large bombs, or anything like that so don't even go there. Plus that argument in itself is a logical fallacy. Just because someone has something doesn't mean they'll use it. People are allowed to own tanks and attack helicopters, but when's the last time you heard about someone killing with one?
User avatar
#183 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
i'm well aware of the slippery slope fallacy. i'm not saying someone is ACTUALLY going to do that, but i'm saying that the constitution does TECHNICALLY allow for that, which is a huge flaw. the "reasonable" limits clause (relating to the second ammendment) would more imply that restrictions are in place for civilians to own guns that have no purpose other than killing people. there is literally no reason for a civilian to own any weapon more powerful than a hunting rifle, outside of bona-fide gun collections.
User avatar
#184 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
There you go again with that "need" argument. You don't need a computer, you don't need a car, you don't need shit. All you need is food, water and protection from the elements. There is literally no functional difference between an AR15 and say, a Mini-14. The difference is purely cosmetic. It looks scary, therefor it must be banned
User avatar
#185 - sovereignsunkown (01/17/2013) [-]
that's not a need arguement, that's saying "there is no non-harmful purpose." stop attributing things to my arguements that i'm not saying.
i suggest you take a look at Canada's gun laws for a better example; any firearm that can not be used for a legitimate purpose (like hunting or the like) is generally illegal, because the only reason to own such a weapon is to
A) "just to have it" (if you have such a weapon, what's to say it will not be stolen, or improperly used by a family member...say a curious child, perhaps?)
B) defend yourself (which is overkill. get a 9mm handgun or a 12 guage or some otherperfectly reasonable weapon for a civilian to own)
C) kill people. (i don't even think i have to justify this one)
it makes quite a bit of sense that weapons of this sort should not be available to the general public
User avatar
#186 - Onemanretardpack (01/17/2013) [-]
As for option A, that's all the goddamn reason I need to own a babby-killin machine gun, who are you to say I'm not responsible enough to own something?

Option B: Again, you have no right to say what is or isn't appropriate for me to have as long as what I am doing with it doesn't harm anyone

Option C: You can kill someone with just about anything, more people drown every year than are killed by guns, we should ban water then huh? Rifles are used in an extremely small amount of gun crimes, and an even smaller amount of murders. The things you say are "perfectly reasonable" for home defense? They kill more people every year than any other gun around.

And then there's option D: Almost every shooting sports associating uses the AR15 platform in their competitions.
User avatar
#143 - durkadurka (01/17/2013) [-]
From what I understand teen pregnancy has been going down. I think the same's true for drug use (excluding pot) but I'm not sure. The point is that education can go a long way.

Your list didn't include much of anything that could be considered a "punishment", my statement was more of a response to some of the proposals to ban certain weapons, magazines and attachments.

The amendments are supposed to be vague as to maintain relevance long after they were written. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of providing American citizens with the means of overthrowing their government should the need arise. After all, that is exactly what the founders did to the British. So yes, I could possibly make the case that I should be allowed to own ANYTHING the military has.

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It provides instruction for exactly what the government can do. Anything outside of what is listed in the Constitution is either a right of the states or the people. The founders didn't want the government to grow outside of its determined role. (We've pretty much failed at keeping things that way). Your unalienable rights are not supposed to be limited, so long as they do not infringe upon another's. This was no mistake or oversight.