You can't have my right to self-defense, nor the mechanisms by which I ensure it: somehow, politicians are under the impression their lives are more valuable than ours. You think they'll disarm their escorts once firearms are banned? ROFLMAO.
You hit the nail on the head here. You have to realize by now that American politicians are fuckin stupid, and they don't care about anything but control and money. Just look at what they have done to the U.S in the last decade; open borders, free flowing drugs, questionable health care, and unreasonable(but entertaining) war. Guns are for cowards, governments have the capacity to illegalize and control all guns in the U.S but greed and huge contracts are too important. Only animals living in the jungle have such high capacity to kill another animal in the blink of an eye.
The ides of "defending one's self" is an isolated excuse. What are you going to do when some robber decides to rob you on your way from work? Are you going to tell him to meet him at yur house so both of you can play Russian roulette? And if you carry your gun with you everywhere, thats just unecessary paranoia. If you are carring a gun when you are just a working class citizen what are you going to be carring when you become important? A bazzooka? And lets not even begin to suggest what you will be carrying when you become bill gates rich, at that point yo will be rolling around in a tank. In reality 99% of the injuries during a robbery happen because the victim tries to be smart, unless you are ex military my advice is to always cooperate with the assialant during an attack. Its also very difficult to reach for a gun, load it, cock it, and point, in a stick up. Besides what are you going to do when more than two guys come to robb you with guns, are you an action hero? Say some group of thugs crash into your house at night, you have kids in the house, and they want your money, are you going to be stupid enough to ..."defend yourself" and put your whole life in jeopardy just for some manufactured property? The truth is that a society with guns is the same as a society without guns, in both cases there will always be criminals, the difference is that a society with weapons is walking a tight rope and far more dangerous. There are some instances where a gun is absoluately useful, like an animal attack. If you are going to defend yourself from robbers, you better make sure you know what you are doing, any mistake and either or both of you will have hell to pay.
Nope! Not me! I'm goiing to let them do anything that they want to me and my family without even attempting to trying any defense. If they want to rape my wife and little girl, I'm going to just stand there and let them do it ...and even encourage my family to not resist at all. Later, after the robbers realize that we can identify them, if they want to kill us, I'll let them do that, too, without lifting one finger in self-defense. In fact, your post has inspired me ...I'm going to write my congressman and suggest that we pass a law that makes self-defense a criminal felony in the USA ...perhaps even with a death penalty as punishment! Thanks for your sound, reasoned advice, Baron Max
It's your prerogative to make that decision. At the present, I have a policy of defending myself or my family if either are attacked. I will continue to do so if it becomes illegal, and, as always, I will do it without a gun of any kind. What was this thread about, again?
They are neither a luxury or a necessity. They are unecessary and unethical. Primitives use them, and still stand no chance against superior augmented pacifist humans.
Come off it man, what are you going to do when some three guys crash into your home with para military weapons and determinations, are you going to ...defend yourself? There is a reaosn why the cops always tell citizens to cooperate and call the police. You can never predict what will happen in an attack, its is a very volatile situation, the last thing you need to be doing is provoking the attacker. What are you going to do when some guy come to your neck with a hunting knife and you can smell marijuana on his breath? Are you going to be stupid enough to reach for your..arms?(laughs). guns have their uses, I don't care whether you carry a gun or an AK 47, my advice is that you better know what you are getting into
Not me! I'm going to tell 'em where my wife and kids are hiding so maybe they'll attack and rape them while I try to escape unharmed!! None of that self-defense bullshit for me, by god. I'm gonna' give up my wife and kids without liftin' one lousy finger to do anything to defend them. My passive nature will lull them into reasoning, then maybe they'll turn themselves in to the police and seek mental help. Nope, none of that defending anything for me ....I'll surrender and drop down in prayer at the very first sign of attack. Baron Max
What?! So now you think I should actually try to defend myself and my family???? How can you change your fuckin' tune so easily?? Baron Max
Yes. Superior pacifists. Not primitive gun lovers. Why else would people like guns if they are not prims?
They stand an excellent chance because they have weapons and can force the "superior augmented" pacifist supermen to do what they're told, or die.
What exactly is a superior augmented pacifist human, anyway? The ideal martial artist? Please. Any moderately-trained and conditioned weapon wielder owns your supposedly superior male ballet dancers. It's not up for debate, it's a fukn fact. Wake up, you idealist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No they are not. Non combat martial arts are techniques for improving balance, movement, and overall body. Sort of like gymnastics, but involving other techniques. It is not about violence, but the inevitability of more advanced superior humans to outlast more primitive minded violent humans. No matter how many guns the prims have, the more highly evolved pacifist human will outlast them.
It's funny that you would associate firearm owners with primitiveness, as if having the most efficient means of self-defense somehow prevented one from being an intellectual or a "superior" human. You won't outlast force if you can't match it or resist it: examples abound in nature and shoot down (excuse the pun, it wasn't intentional) your idea. Who, exactly, are those primitive-minded and violent humans you refer to? No more dancing around the chair: jump right in and give us some details instead of your usual rhetoric.
You mean examples aboundi in primitive nature. The less evolved the human, the more primitive their characteristics. Violence is a primitive characteristic. Higher evolved humans do not partake in violent activities, have no need for guns, and survive over primitves with guns. The higher evolved human is the fittest. The primitive minded I am refering to are those that like guns, and believe violence may be an option. Their intellect is incapable of understanding that nonviolent actions are not just available, they are more practical means of influence.
Human nature is such that violent and criminal-minded people will walk alongside you: since, by definition, they don't obey the law, it would be in your best interest to acquire the knowledge and means of defending yourself in the event that you are targeted as a victim. The mechanisms by which intelligent people ensure their self-defense are many, and one of them happens to be firearms: that you would ignore their usefulness and associate their use with primitiveness and the dullminded speaks volume about your ignorance. Try and use non-violent actions when the criminal rapes your wife and attempts to kill you: let's see how long he'll listen. It's not about living in fear, but rather about being prepared: you do have a first-aid kit and tools at home, don't you? Same line of reasoning.
