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
China isn't a third world country. It's a totalitarian dictatorship, but it's culture, infrastructure, and technology are quite modern
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The GDP per capita of China is $6,000. That means Mexico, Libya, and Peru are all richer than China. Even China's richest cities, like Dongying, only have a GDP per capita of about $20,000. As for infrastructure, according to the inequality adjusted human development index, China is the 67th highest ranking country. And in the normal HDI they rank 101st. It's a third world country.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
China isn't a third world country. It's a fully modern nation that sadly has one of the most repressive governments on the planet. The fact that it doesn't have high rankings for individual prosperity doesn't make it third world
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1.54 would still rank us higher then a lot of European nations, and much higher then Japan.
I wasn't talking about recidivism, I was talking about how many criminals commit murder. In Japan it's not that many. There are plenty of things in this nation that kill more people by accident then the number of people in Japan who are killed by deliberate action. Japan is a radically different culture then the US. Our gun ownership rate is just one of many things that set us apard
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I wasn't talking about recidivism"
You said criminals in Japan who commit murder don't use guns very often (11/650) because they don't kill very often. I pointed out that American murderers, even though the vast majority of them use firearms, are first time offenders. There isn't a diffrence between those two groups, they both wish to carry out murders. Why would these Japanese killers willingly choose to not buy guns for their killings? We've already established that the majority of people in these groups are first time killers, therefore they have the same inclination to obtain guns. However, one these groups doesn't use them very often even though they both have the same initiative. I wonder why.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Japanese criminals don't have the same inclination to kill, seeing as their murder rate, in all forms, is massively lower then ours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Japanese criminals don't have the same inclination to kill"
"criminals in Japan who commit murder"
"criminals in Japan who commit murder"
"criminals in Japan who commit murder"
I'm getting board of repeating myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shhh, your logical thinking and critical commentary scares the sheeple. Shhhhhhh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not unless you're Bruce Lee wearing titanium armor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It cannot be that hard. Simply require an IQ test, mental aptitude test and a criminal background check. That way, we can at least somewhat alleviate the criminal gun problem.
Other than that, any competent person who buys an assault weapon gets free mandatory basic weapon handling training, including the assembly/dis-assembly, maintenance and cleaning of said weapons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who seek to prohibit someone from owning a gun, not those who seek to buy one. Someone can only lose their gun rights due to a criminal conviction or commitment to a mental institution as a result of due process.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You make a fair point. However, a mental aptitude test would still be useful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That still doesn't justify them. We're not going to give mental health professionals (many of whom are anti-gun and would be concerned about liability of someone who was approved later commits a crime) total control of our constitutional rights. The burden of proof is on those who want to deny rights, not those who seek to practice them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ahhh, I see what you are getting at now; I misinterpreted you before. My mistake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There are already laws in place requiring background checks on people buying firearms. That's what a lot of these idiots don't get.
The problem is criminals don't get their guns and ammo from local gun shops they get them from off the street; off the Black Market; they get them illegally. Gun Control laws don't do a thing except make law-abiding citizens like fish in a barrel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, the latter isn't all that true. According to a report done by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, while The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.
www.slate.com/articles/health_…
And the report doesn't bode well for either side of the gun debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You make a fair point. Better idea: START HUNTING THE BLACK MARKET!! IDIOTS!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They already do background checks, and you don't get your gun until about a week after you order it.
And it takes about 15 minuets for anyone to learn the basics of an AK-47.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fair enough, but it never hurts to be taught. Someone like me would probably need to learn a few times over; my short term memory is horrendous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm semi-pro-gun, basicaly, I'm for LIMITED gun rights. I mean, do you REALLY need an ASSAULT RIFLE if someone breaks into your home?
👍: 0 ⏩: 5
"Assault weapons" are fully automatic machine guns and military rifles which have been illegal for civilians to own since the 1930s. And frankly, it's nobody's business what type of gun I decide to own, provided that I am not breaking any laws by owning it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Assault rifles are already illegal to own without going through a special process to get them. Kindly stick to facts.
And who and by what right, by what code, by what standard gets to decide what a person needs to defend their home?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The government? I mean, if they don't, and you won't give them power. Let's just not have one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The government is made up of people no different than you or I, so where do they get the right to control the lives of other people?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I never implied it as god.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What's an "assault rifle"? Ask 12 different people and you'll get 12 different answers.
"Assault rifle" is a slang term with a meaning that has proven quite elastic. People who want to restrict guns routinely apply to as many firearms as possible, including popular ones owned by millions.
So if you want to ban some type of gun, you're going to have to be more specific. The term "assault rifle" has proven to be far too broad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Assault rifle" has a very precise definition, and is not a slang term
"Assault weapon" is an imprecise slang term made up by ignorant members of the media, but now in common use
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Assault rifle has proven to be quite an elastic term. You won't find any standard definition of it anywhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My definition of "Assault Rifle": A standard issue military rifle; fully automatic; used in warzones. i.e. AK-47, M-16, M4A1, AR-15, ect. (The one in the picture is a M1A1, standard issue US Military Rifle)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Okay, then this issue is not a problem for you at all. Fully automatic firearms have been banned from civilian manufacture in the US since 1986. Their use in crime is now virtually non-existent.
The picture you see is that of an AR15, the civilian version of the M16/M4A1. The AR15 does not have fully automatic firing capability. You can see on the selector switch there are only two modes: Safe and Fire. The automatic or burst mode isn't there, because this type of gun does not have that feature.
I hope that clears things up. You see the problem with this issue is that people throw around the term "assault rifle" without knowing all the facts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay. Now, do you really need a Semi-automatic rifle to defend your house from a robber, in an urban area? With lots of neighbors?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow way to change the subject after finding out you made a colossal factual error and your entire premise was false. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.
To answer your question, the issue isn't whether or not it's "necessary". We don't base ownership of things based on pure need. I don't need a playstation either, but I'm not giving that up.
The issue is whether or not it's effective, and the answer to that is an overwhelming yes. See how it worked out for this gunshop owner:
www.wistv.com/story/19236842/g…
Notice that he had to fire all 30 rounds from his magazine in order to survive. With a lesser gun, he might not have fared so well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
As the old saying goes, you can't argue with success. He defeated the robbers with no injuries to himself, his employees, family members, or innocent bystanders. You can't ask for better results then that. So I'm not going to judge his shooting. If he fired 30 rounds, it's because that's how many rounds were needed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or maybe he was just lucky that he didn't shoot anybody else? Who knows?
Let me tell you something that happened to me. One New Year's Eve I was going back home from the party. It was a lame party and I was going home pretty early (maybe 1 am) and as I was passing by the old mill, which, for the reference, had an old, wooden fence that was still standing after the mill was closed for years, I heard something like "tock---tock---tock---tock---tock". I turned around and I couldn't see anyone else. When I looked a little better, I saw bullet holes on the fence. Somebody shoot in the air to celebrate New Year and bullets ended up not even 5 ft from me.
When you pull the trigger, where bullet will end up depends on many factors. Let me know how many professional marksman is out there with weapons and how many are just regular Joes without any specific (and proper) training.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well you sure seem judgemental of someone who is in a life or death situation. I suppose it's a shame you were not there when the shootout occurred so you could tell the victim how do defend himself properly
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I just survived a civil war and saw how it is when a bunch of untrained morons lays their hands on automatic weapons. "Collateral damage" sounds so far away when it is somebody else's family, not so much when its yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Automatic weapons have been banned from civilian manufacture in the US since 1986. Those are not the type of guns we are talking about. The gun pictured is an AR15, which does not have the ability to fire in automatic mode. It fires one round per trigger pull, just like a pistol or revolver.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Private citizens in the United States are not able to purchase fully automatic weapons. AR-15s are semi-automatic. They fire at the same rate as a handgun--One trigger pull equals one bullet fired. So... good job, your suggestion has been the law for a long time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"purchase"=no
"obtain"=easily.
It only takes a little no how to be able to make enable the auto-firing in some guns. A buddy of mine did that with an AK back in high school (before putting it back to normal).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And just as we have laws prohibiting the modification of certain aspects of your vehicle (for "safety" of course), we have laws prohibiting the modification of certain aspects of semi-automatic firearms. Once again, punishing the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners in this country for the things that morons like your friend did--regardless of the laws--is asinine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I'll give you that one (though cars are a lot more difficult to modify than guns, that doesn't mean they can't be).
That said, your argument doesn't extend to tougher purchasing requirements. Afterall, you have to do far more paperwork to get a car, why not something that has no purpose but to be dangerous (be it to you, an assailant, or a innocent bysstander).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not a master at guns.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Well in that case, you should either:
A) educate yourself about the issue before saying anything or
B) keep your mouth shut.
Because you are making yourself look like an ignorant twit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
By this I mean I'm not some one who knows a lot about guns. I am aware of the situation though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You don't have to be a master, but you should learn so basic facts if you are going to get involved in this issue. The status of automatic guns in this nation is about as simple as it gets. Messing up here does not look good at all.
That's what us well informed people find so frustrating. It's not just that people try to ban our favorite gun types. It's that they do so without even doing their homework first. They do so without the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>