HOME | DD
IAmTheUnison — There Is No Shame In Defending Yourself
Published: 2013-12-15 01:55:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 9555; Favourites: 200; 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
Then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on the classification of assault weapons, military-grade weapons, etc., on an issue that relies heavily on categorizations, capabilities, etc. For the record, "assault weapon" is a meaningless term. All weapons, from handguns to prison shanks to hand-and-a-half "bastard" swords, are assault weapons, because that's what weapons do. They assault other people. Creating laws that prohibit citizens from owning certain weapons for purely aesthetic reasons is stupid, and the politicians pushing for such laws get away with it because your average person (who does not own firearms) is ignorant on the subject (in other words, they're not "masters at guns" either). It is completely INSANE that we talk about banning "assault weapons" like AR-15s when the vast majority of assaults, thefts, and murders that are committed with a firearm do so with handguns. Where are the pundits screaming for the ban of Glock's entire handgun line? I guess it's okay to pass judgment on "assault weapons" when white children in the suburbs are killed with them (admittedly horrible), but when 15 people under the age of 18 are murdered in Chicago, in a single night, in mostly unrelated incidents, with HANDGUNS, well... but... um... ASSAULT RIFLES ARE SCARY!!!1!
tl;dr If you're going to take a stand on an important social and legal issue, please know what you're talking about first. It'll save the rest of us a lot of aggravation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Depends on who it is that has broken into your home. Who to say that the home invader is just a petty thug? It could just as easily be pawns of a corrupt government, and before you say that's ridiculous keep in mind that that did happen not only in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, but also here in the United States too. Just ask the Japanese American families during World War II.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
In this particular case buddy, I don't agree with you - if it is, as you say "pawns of a corrupt government", they we're pretty much screwed anyways - we simply can't match their equipment and numbers, no matter what kind of weapon we own. I mean, if 20 SWAT guys stormed your apartment in full gear, what weapon would you be able to buy in the open market that can help you with that?
Most of the people today have no proper training in weapons/martial arts/tactics/guerrilla warfare or whatever else could help them, so giving them access to more powerful weapons isn't a solution. Raising awareness and training is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your response is the only valid argument for the legality of true "fighting" weapons, IMO. I do not consider "assault rifles" very good fighting weapons though, especially at close quarters.
Even so, I was present during an interesting conversation between a club officer and the head of the Dane County Motorcycle Gang Crime Unit*. The cop (Mark Hamil* - a honorable man by our standards) brought in a full-auto Uzi and laid it on our bar.
"And?" asked our lad.
"Just thought I'd warn you that we'd bought a few for the MGCU's vehicles in case you ever want to fight." Hamil replied with a grin.
"Thanks for the warning," our man said, reaching down for the five shot, legal length short barreled semi-auto 12 gauge under the bar and dropping it on the bartop.
Mark looked at it, sighed, finished his coffee without another word. I felt bad for him, he was a good, clean cop. He just forgot reality for a second.
* The Motorcycle tac squad was Hamil's baby, He's dead of natural causes some years ago and the squad may have been disbanded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Their militarizes where desperate, take the battle of Stalingrad for example. Where fighting was so harsh, German soldiers actually looted women's coats off of dead citizens to keep warm during the winter. There was no discipline then.
Also, isn't the point of a police force to protect the citizens. If you're going to let everyone carry around a M-16, why not just remove all of the police force.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
"isn't the point of a police force to protect the citizens"
It SHOULD be, but they are hardly infallible. I was in plenty of situations where the police was being the bad guy on innocent people. They are human, and humans are capable of being bad just a much as being good. When they abuse their authority, they are part of the problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You completely missed the point. The Nazis disarmed the citizens and then systematically murdered 6 million people who were no longer able to defend themselves. The same thing happened in Russia and China.
And then of course there is the Native Americans, who had their weapons taken away too. Ask them how well that worked out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Americans actually game them their weapons...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Remember, when SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away."
That's not a dig at cops, it's just hard facts. They're human, they can't be everywhere at once, they can't predict every crime before it happens. I'm sure there are examples of stupid criminals doing their thing when a cop is right there at the time. But for the most part, you're ON YOUR OWN until they can arrive.
Also, out of curiosity - no fair Googling! - tell me what YOU think an "assault rifle" is?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Average Police Respond Time: 4 minutes.
That I learned from Reservoir Dogs.
I'm sure you can hold them off with a pistol, and go hide somewhere, also, you [might] have neighbors who care and or will call the police. Also, gunshots are very loud, so you'd wake up the entire neighborhood. But, what if the killer/murder/robber/looter had a knife or melee weapon? I sure your pistol beats their knife.
My definition: 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
Did you know police actually have no duty to respond when you call them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's redundant, please explain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_R… (Castle Rock v. Gonzales)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Neighborhood" - you're funny. For those of us that live out in the boonies? Four minutes my ass, it's literally impossible for a deputy to arrive here in less than 12 minutes or so based on geography, unless they already happen to be in the area (which they never are unless they have a specific reason to be).
Honestly yes, with 17+1 rounds on tap in my Glock, I think I could do well against anything short of a band of Fallout's Raiders. Thing is I live in a fairly gun-friendly State. In places like NYC, ANY gun that holds more than SEVEN rounds is an "assault weapon." Seven rounds may sound like "enough" until you factor in multiple attackers, and the fact that one-hit-stops with handguns are seen far more in fiction than real life.
And you win the prize for having, in MY opinion, the exact correct definition of assault rifle. Thing is, exactly how many of these actual factual assault rifles do you think are in the hands of private citizens?
I'll go on and tell you that 99% of what politicians CALL assault rifles, AREN'T. They have the same LOOKS, but the firepower is just the same as any other SEMIautomatic firearm out there.
And then there are guns like the SKS, politician-defined as an assault rifle. Hell, by our definition, even the ones issued to the Russian army back in the day were NEVER assault rifles, because they were NEVER designed to be full-auto.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What you are saying may be true but, come on, when are you gonna have to fight a dozen armed and deranged nut-jobs (who are also dumb enough to charge another guy who is armed with a pistol that will at least kill some of them)? This isn't the movies; most gun murders are committed by people known very well by the victim. That's why stories like Aurora and New Town are big news; they are rare.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hopefully, never. But I also hope I'm never in a serious wreck, or my house never burns, but I wear my seatbelt and keep insurance anyway. Better to have it and not need it, than the opposite.
And again, anyone who thinks they only need "one shot per bad guy" is a fool. Stories abound of criminals absorbing a tremendous amount of gunfire before going down finally, usually hopped up on adrenaline, rage, and/or drugs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have a point about criminals absorbing gunfire (tho I never said "1 shot, 1 kill" or anything along those lines).
That said, your analogy of a car wreck is a good one, when you bring up the random effectiveness of a gun.
After all, just because you have a seat belt on doesn't mean you won't die in a wreck.
That said, if there was a weapon that would incapacitate a target non-lethally 100% of the time and was available at a low price (there are NUMEROUS such devices in development now, try looking up the "pain ray"), would you still be opposed to gun control?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That last bit is something I've thought about just a little. Like, if Star Trek "phasers" were real, and affordable - with a "stun" setting only?
I would still want to be able to collect, own, and shoot guns for recreation. There's a lot of rich history behind many firearms, and target shooting is very enjoyable.
But for defensive use, I can't think of any reason offhand to stick with guns if something like a phaser becomes reality.
The only possible downside I could see would be people being really, really quick to zap someone for minor things - given that it would be nonlethal, and ideally not cause any sort of lasting damage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sadly, that's a major problem living out their.
I guess we can make an exception, maybe more powerful rifles in more rural areas, but in more urban zones, handguns only.
Thank you, and I don't know, I'm going to take a shot (no pun indented) in the dark...20,000?
I agree.
Politicians don't need to know shit about weapons, they just need to know how to lie and screw over other people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You do if you have a small penis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
the marching song from "Full Metal Jacket" comes to mind....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't see what genitalia have anything to do with this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a common joke; people buy big cars to make up for small genitalia. The joke is also often applied to people who buy large guns. It's essentially making light of the fact that big guns or big cars are a symptom of self-image issues, devices designed to compensate for flaws the owners perceives in themselves and want to suppress.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Or they just like big guns or big cars. This joke is really a joke, often on the idiot who spouts it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The joke satirically explains why they 'just like' big guns or big cars. That's the point of it.
And really, the fact you felt the need to leave such a bitter comment about it shows the joke got to you in some way. I wonder why.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm a female, and I own an AR-15, several handguns, a shotgun, and a target pistol. I own it because I enjoy shooting with it, not because I have penis envy, or any other Freudian bullshit reason for owning something I like. I don't flaunt it to friends, I sure as shit don't drive around with it to prove anything to anyone. It stays locked in a gun safe, with a trigger lock on, unless I'm going to the range to shoot. I enjoy disassembling as re-assembling it, customizing my rail and sights, etc. So please, armchair psychoanalyze me. I'm sure your "diagnosis" will be extremely entertaining.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
That's great, but I don't have the time for armchair psychology; I'm just a guy making a joke about a subject people seem to get their knickers in a real twist over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I rather just leave it out of this...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |