HOME | DD
IAmTheUnison — There Is No Shame In Defending Yourself
Published: 2013-12-15 01:55:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 9509; Favourites: 201; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I feel a deep swell of pity for anybody so foolish as to disarm themselves before their enemies...and reality check, people! YOU ALWAYS HAVE ENEMIES!! Even if you don't know them yet. Such is the nature of the world we live in. There will always be those who seek to do you harm for whatever reasons they may have, and it is your responsibility and your responsibility alone to defend you and yours. Do not make the foolish error in judgement of thinking that someone else will defend you; for it is a very stupid person who blindly puts their safety in the hands of others; especially those who are pawns of a flawed and corrupt system such as what exists in this thing we call government.The police are not your first line of defense. The military is not your first line of defense. YOU are your first line of defense. YOU are responsible for you, and the sooner all you weak-minded, weak-spirited spineless worms wake up and realize this the better off we'll all be...namely 'cause the rest of us will no longer have to endure your childish whining.
To be prepared for war is the most effective way to maintain peace. Gun Control DOES NOT keep law-abiding citizens safe. It DOES NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It just makes gullible suckers more easy targets for those who don't give a damn about the laws, and the corrupt swine who abuse the laws for their own selfish ends. Keep your guns! Because nothing wards off criminals and tyrants like a bullet to the head.
And if you are one of those brainless sheeple too feeble-minded understand the importance of this infallible truth, then you had best prepare yourself to succumb to the effects of Darwinism.
Related content
Comments: 374
Yeah but when you walk by other's with a knife out you instill a feeling of fear in them and a insecurity that makes them want a weapon. I don't have any issues with people taking knives with them if they are going in to nature but the people who I frown upon are those who think they need a knife in times square.
I see where you are coming from but I must respectfully disagree with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fair enough. I suppose things ARE different in The Tar Heel State, but you know. At least we can find common ground and agree that firearms should only be for people who have the know how and the desire to safely use and maintain them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually that's not true. We have seen in other countries that have passed stricter gun regulations that they do help bring down gun violence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
A little bit, yes, mostly as parts of a general downwards trend. The overall crime rate remained nearly the same, though. There are under 20 criminal homicides in the US from guns every day within a population of 300 million and a gun-per-hundred people ratio of about 120, and almost none of these are committed with the "scary black rifles".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, that's not how it is in my country.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But that's because Brazil has a lot of different problems that make it very hard to enforce any law, and especially gun regulations. One of which is sadly because the NRA has taken interest in Brazil and have been fighting back against regulations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
youtu.be/hpbZMZm0kbE?t=25s
"don't put your life in someone's hands, there bound to steal it away"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very true. A gun is not good nor evil. A gun cannot load its magazine,push its magazine into the magazine well,chamber a round,put its safety to fire,or pull its own trigger. A gun is only good or evil if a good or evil person uses it. Anything can be used as a weapon.
Thank you for putting this out there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We are neolithic peoples running around with technology our minds aren't ready to have or use. It was true of the gun in the 1800's and it's true of automatic weapons and WMD's. But to disarm amidst savages is to be complacent and insure your demise.
We are all idiots, but America is the least idiot prone nation in modernity.
You're welcome for 97% of all modern convenience and medical advances, Earth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We are neolithic peoples running around with technology our minds aren't ready to have or use. It was true of the gun in the 1800's and it's true of automatic weapons and WMD's. But to disarm amidst savages is to be complacent and insure your demise.
We are all idiots,but America is the least idiot prone nation in modernity.
You're welcome for 97% of all modern convenience and medical advances, Earth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"MANURE 'murica propaganda.A.K.A. propaganda done and bought by idiots and morons."
A.K.A. stupidity from just one of the litany of European idiots on the order of millions worldwide.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah...your opinion's not mine, but you're passionate and I accept that, though you are presumptuous in proclaiming knowledge of God's feelings towards my nation. I can only beg him to smile on us in humility and be proud of the stance that has liberated the world twice over from fascism, and enjoy the relative freedom that came to your nation from our opposition to the Soviet Union, you're welcome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're a generalist when it comes to my country, taking a few bad managers and calling it my nation.
On the other hand, you are an ultra-patriot when it comes to your own country, if a little overly inflated in your historical certainty.
Even prior to victory in the North African Campaign in May 1943, there was disagreement between the Allies on the best strategy to defeat the Axis. The British, especially the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, advocated their traditional naval-based peripheral strategy. Even with a large army, but greater naval power, the traditional British answer against a continental enemy was to fight as part of a coalition and mount small peripheral operations designed to gradually weaken the enemy. The United States, with an even larger army, favored a more direct method of fighting the main force of the German Army in Northern Europe. The ability to launch such a campaign depended on first winning the Battle of the Atlantic.
The strategic disagreement was fierce, with the U.S. service chiefs arguing for an invasion of France as early as possible, while their British counterparts advocated a policy centered on operations in the Mediterranean. There was even pressure from some Latin American countries to stage an invasion of Spain, which under Francisco Franco was friendly to the Axis nations, although not a participant in the war. The American staff believed that a full-scale invasion of France at the earliest possible time was required to end the war in Europe, and that no operations should be undertaken that might delay that effort. The British argued that the presence of large numbers of troops trained for amphibious landings in the Mediterranean made a limited-scale invasion possible and useful.
Eventually the U.S. and British political leadership reached a compromise in which both would commit most of their forces to an invasion of France in early 1944, but also launch a relatively small scale Italian campaign. A contributing factor was Franklin D. Roosevelt's desire to keep US troops active in the European theater during 1943 and his attraction to the idea of eliminating Italy from the war. It was hoped that an invasion might knock Italy out of the conflict, or at least increase the pressure on them and weaken them further. The elimination of Italy would enable Allied naval forces, principally the Royal Navy, to dominate the Mediterranean Sea, securing the lines of communications with Egypt, the Far East, the Middle East and India. Italian divisions on occupation and coastal defense duties in the Balkans and France would be withdrawn to defend Italy, while the Germans would have to transfer troops from the Eastern Front to defend Italy and the entire southern coast of France, thus aiding the Soviets.
If we had went with a full force landing in France from the beginning, Russia's advance into the west would have ended in Poland's eastern edge. The U.S. might have been able to sweep in behind the German Eastern Front and secured the Balkan's. Blame your good friends the British for diverting hundreds of thousands of men to secure its own interests in the Middle East, and wasting thousands of lives that could have led to a free democratic Romania in 1945.
Truman, and Eisenhower, tried to bring your nation into the Second War on the Allies side under the old League of Nations charter, we didn't back the Albanian plan because it was an overreach into occupied territory that was really just an excuse for the British to seize much of the looted wealth and supply leaving Greece via Austrian exit routs. We had bled the most as it is estimated that between September 1943 and April 1945, some 60,000-70,000 Allied and 60,000-150,000 German soldiers died in Italy. Overall Allied casualties during the campaign totaled about 320,000 and 600,000 dead in total. Besides them, over 150,000 Italian civilians died, as did 15,197 anti-Fascist partisans and 13,021 troops of the Italian Social Republic.
1940 November 5 Poland breaks diplomatic relations with Romania. November 13 Poland breaks diplomatic relations with Italy. November 23 Belgium declares war on Italy. 1941 January 1 Poland breaks diplomatic relations with Hungary. February 11 The Netherlands breaks diplomatic relations with Romania. February 12 Belgium breaks diplomatic relations with Romania. February 21 Norway breaks diplomatic relations with Romania.
You need to understand why....
Romania's early refusal to join meant your country was fed to the alliance we'd made to eat the fascist western half of Europe. It amounted to backing several smaller states against Russian expansion or accepting their help in ending the Reich. We chose to back the more effective/powerful ally and to stave off a third direct conflict by moving into the Cold War "peace". Soviet oppression was hard on Romania (and worse in other places), but our spending policy in the arms race helped bankrupt the Socialist Soviet state. At least there still is a Romania for you to be so passionate about. Was our national policy perfect? No. Did it eventually pay off? Yes.
Siding with the Balkans nations in 1944 would have meant 10-12 more years of bloody conflict and a formal betrayal of an established alliance.
Always consider our nations position in your views of history.
We were really after Japan for attacking us and liberated Europe out of the sheer magnanimous goodness of our greedy capitalist imperialist American hearts.
And who gives a shit about WW1? The League of Nations was our nations attempt to end the nationalism of a divided Europe after that stupid war!
That's ancient history and every nation then was a want-to-be imperialist version of it's modern self, even the Slavic lands!
Maybe if your country had been unified as one (Slavic, Estonian, Muntenian, Oltenian, Hungarian, Thracian, Bulgarian, Czech, Albanian, Transylvanian, Moldavian) nation prior to WW1 and had fought off Russia back then instead of settling for anarchy along ancient ethic and linguistic lines it could have weathered better. Don't blame us for having a more ordered society that looked past local xenophobia from one region to another to span our own continent. The ultimate failure of the Romanian state in antiquity was of its own design. And your high held monarchy bare the brunt of that strategic burden.
"you make ANTI-ROMANIAN,ANTI-BARABIA AND ANTI-UNION PROPAGANDA in Basarabia and pro-hunGAYrian separatism declaration in Romania,by your OFFICIAL AMBASSADORS."
You keep saying "you and "your", as if "I" am America and the poor judgement of "one" ambassador. Stop doing that, because "you're" not Romania, thankfully.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God, you're fucking retarded. Dacia has jack and shit to do with you, and your a fucking idiot for thinking it does, or that I don't know your history, my history, Chinese, Japanese, Polynesian history and fucking everything you wiki before you copy and paste it at me.
You trow shit back I already answered, and refuse to ingest the corrections of your fuck variation of historical fact.
You're a dumb-ass, and a troll!
Go rot in Hell!
With the rest of your bitch made ass people!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Unless you factor in drug cartels, alcohol and cars kill more people around here than guns do. Where's the ban on alcohol? Where's the ban on personally owned automobiles? Oh wait... it led to an uprising known as Al Capone. Imagine if the second amendment got its own prohibition....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If I had to guess, you're from Greece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The UK's getting it bad from the EU.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Never understood why people cannot see this self-evident truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And.I'm so sick and tired of hearing."We need to have a National Conversation on Guns."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do not and cannot feel comfortable entering a building that boasts a "gun-free" sign on their door. Because no matter how many signs people put out it isn't going to stop criminals who don't abide laws anyway to bring in guns and massacre people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Banning a good persons rifle is not going to do anything to take away from the criminal who has one. Soooo yeah
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... do you mean the guys with the S.W.A.T Uniforms or "other kinds of Criminals" ? ^^
People have yet to learn that the claim of being in the right is superstition and that they rely on violence and force anyway to have their so called and (not really) well proven laws enforced.
And what makes the lifes of lets call them the Police so much harder every day? I doubt its bulky fitnesscenter addicts.
Its the ownership of guns. How many people got killed in the name of LAW in the US?
Or got shot in an accident by themself or a member of their family? Its hilarious and sad everytime again.
Maybe I should indeed give up. Im just a small human and are unable to understand how the universe or evolution works.
And the process of natural selection is far more cunning and deep as I could ever imagine I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
www.activistpost.com/2015/06/w…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Omg thanks for showing me this idiocy. WHO NEEDS KNIFES TO KILL?
You can use so many worktools and objects as weapons... man, why are Organizations so dumb?
I tell everyone how to end crimes. -> BY INVENTING A FAIR SYSTEM.
Crime is simply the possibility to gain something breaking the law of a system that is taking you from anyway in an unequal way.
In a system that is equal, there will be no greed or wealth related crimes and therefore 90% of all crimes wont even take place anymore.
But yeah... that was too simple... and way too utopic as US medias would say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WHO NEEDS KNIFES TO KILL?
anyone...almost everyone
You can use so many worktools and objects as weapons
true that one can use almost anything to kill someone.....
but you cant ban everything (according to gun haters)
I tell everyone how to end crimes. -> BY INVENTING A FAIR SYSTEM.
true...but not just practically possible
the human mind cannot be changed easily to discard problems like greed or envy or selfishness or such things...
so banning guns dont change much
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That why im saying: We should ban the system that regards profit higher as humans.
Jacque Fresco was a brilliant man to understand that but he lacked the ways to make the "plebians" understand it.
To my flaw I have to admit I am not brilliant enough to explain this to most other people.
I understand it so easily and I have yet trouble to comprehend why others dont.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it is easy to say that we must change the system....
but the fact is that this world has lots of people who would even sell their mothers to make profits...
in a society that is plagued by crime it is not wise to ban weapons that one can use to protect themselves..
criminals will always find a way to do harm...so all they are doing is to prevent ordinary people from defending themselves
on one side we can see governments who fight wars on drugs whereas the same govts funds or helps drug lords..
what you said is correct....improving the conditions of society will help bring down crimes but banning guns wont do any help
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its understandable for the US. Founded on blood, hold on blood. No sarcasm or pun intended.
Such events are forming the mind. Something that is taken forcefully was not claimed just to be shared equally later on.
Still the way those dumb system runs have long past its zenith.
Oil runs out and with those the wasteful and idiotic ways the western world moves (literally).
The new found ressources below the Ukraine wont change that. The thing that got everything rolling around the Krim and the Putin is the next Devil story.
In truth its again just all an oily story of lies and greed.
In the end the gun topic alone doesnt bother me that much.
We have next to none in Germany and the crimerate is nearly nonexistent as well.
But hey voices from the US say our system is utopistic anyway and couldnt be copied 1 to 1 for the US.
In the end it could be done actually... but not if the government is pumping so much money into the military.
Of course then its impossible.
Oh yes... trying to do something forcefully is so~ smart when most problems arise just because of the stubborness of those idea in the first place.
Its 2015 and humanity is as dumb as ever.
For the pride and illusion of power exclusiv for a minority of narcistic idiots, the whole western world is struggling unnecessarily and completely for nothing else.
*sigh*
The more I learn about the people of the world I live in the less I wish I would have understood.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yep...americans always expected injun marauders to raid their stolen property or british to come back to claim the stolen colony and thats why they needed guns to form militias
yes germany is doing well and crime rate is low without gun ownership
switzerland is also doing well and crime rate is low even with gun ownership
that proves that crimes will fall if the society is doing pretty well regardless of gun ownership
britain on the other hand is seeing increase in crime even after ban on guns...it shows that british society is starting to rot
sweden and france also has increase in crime thanks to unchecked immigrants
trying to do something forcefully is so~ smart when most problems arise just because of the stubborness of those idea in the first place.
exactly...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Im not saying everyone in the US who isnt a native of Nordamerica is a thief.
Just wanted to point that out. I may have made it sound like I called them thiefs.
A born american is a rightful american now.
I dunno about the unchecked immigrants. Its the moneyelitists game to make the minoritys fight each other to make sure they arent united and are not bringing down the system that exploits them.
Also crime is rising because the economic system is nearing its next "great depression" if you know what I mean. But some countrys are better doing a job of keeping the effects low or nonexistent as others. Germany is very good doing it and im not sure if I should be proud of that. =_=;
But in other countrys the poverty is spreading harder and as a result, crime is rising as well.
Our social help system is against the constitution of Germany as well but you have to agree and resign your rights or you cant take it.
Even so by taking it and signing up to some stupid dutys and social humilation... you get money for free and that solved problems and stopped people to become criminal.
Because if the system is not taking care of you anyway, crime pays off.
One day, people will notice this and improve what is still lacking. Hopefully before the Nukes destroy everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes i know all americans are not thieves..few greedy americans stole native lands for profit but the natives killed many innocent americans also in
retaliation....just like terrorism now...greedy politicians bombs middleast and the terrorist ends up killing innocent american civilians instead
yes unchecked migranst cause lots of trouble...look at sweden upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
now becomes highest rape rating...not because of poverty but becuase of immigrants
also in britain they find out that welfare money is being used to fund ISIS...free money is not going to change poverty for certain people
so even if the system is taking care of you..crime still happens...what prevents it is the mindset of people
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
lets say IF the guns are banned and the gun related violence has decreased....
THEN what if criminals start using knives instead of guns???? what next???ban all the knives then?????
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Let's ban untensils and fast food restaurants for making people fat.
That's anti-gun logic if it was applied to combating obesity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you said it
also ban television for making people dumb
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's a stupid argument. Do you know why we invented firearms?
To kill people.
To hunt.
Why do we have knives?
As cutlery to eat.
Butchering meat.
Cutting rope (camping).
To chop food.
Don't tell me you use firearms for things other than killing humans/animals (target practice doesn't count, that's just practicing to kill something).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
never seen anyone surrender to a firearm huh?? there aint no rule that everytime a firearm is drawn a person must be killed
every coin has 2 sides
To kill people - who try to attack you
To hunt - animals for sport and to protect people from maneaters and savage criminals
and so you say its humanly impossible to kill people with knives??? yet knife related violence outnumbers gun related violence whopping 5:1
thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/k…
hotair.com/greenroom/archives/…
if knife is harmless and is solely used for (As cutlery to eat.Butchering meat.Cutting rope (camping).To chop food.) ,then would people be calm and happy if you openly carry it in public??
and please do tell me who on earth other than you use knives like kukri, stilleto and switchblade for cutlery and camping???
Don't tell me you use firearms for things other than killing humans/animals (target practice doesn't count, that's just practicing to kill something).....
never seen any people using guns in olympics??? who have never killed any human or animal in their lives ever????guess they must be practicing all their lives to kill humans effectively..
also enthusiasts collect firearms for hobby....and not to build up a huge arsenal to prepare for a zombie apocalypse
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe in the Olympics blank rounds would be used. You can't do much with a gun if you don't have live ammunition.
"and please do tell me who on earth other than you use knives like kukri, stilleto and switchblade for cutlery and camping???"
My mistake, I thought you meant all types of knives.
"who have never killed any human or animal in their lives ever????guess they must be practicing all their lives to kill humans effectively.."
Sorry but I don't understand what you said here. Can you please word it differently again in a reply?
"and so you say its humanly impossible to kill people with knives???"
I didn't say that. I was simply stating that the main use of firearms is to kill, while knives are mainly used for other things a lot of the time.
I see you live in India. I don't know much so correct me if I'm wrong but I believe people in your country can only own a firearm if they have a genuine reason for doing so. That, I'm not against. It's when anyone can buy a firearm like in some states of the US, I believe.
Since I live in the UK, I know that if I walk out my door there's a very low chance of me getting shot or attacked. Firearms aren't so much a necessity in our country as not many criminals even have them. However, for other countries, I can't say anything about banning firearms completely as I don't know enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>