Smashing the Police State

What about defending yourself from violence, violently if need be?

 

If someone attacked you with a knife, and you had a gun and COULD NOT RUN AWAY and they wouldnt stop charging, what would you? Put the gun down and politely ask to have a chat???

 

Ok, this includes doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, nurses, secretaries, mechanics, technicians, factory workers etc etc etc ie. this is the middle class like I said before who are all DROWNING in DEBT and have much of their private property confiscated in the form of the income tax. Thankyou verrrrrryyy much for agreeing with me. I'm glad we see eye to eye.

 

I think you answered your own question.

This isn't about discussion. It's about the ranting and raving of the hyper-paranoid lunitic fringe and their masturbatory fantasies. As to why they feel a need to post big pictures of their big guns, consult the writings of Sigmund Freud regarding phallic symbols and penial envy.By posting those pictures they are trying to compensate for short comings in "other areas", if you know what I mean. And even if you don't, they do.

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

Poor old, sad old impotent dud...

In the twentieth century Sigmund Freud convinced many that he could interpret people’s dreams and expose repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse or harmful sexual fantasies involving their parents. Although no credible evidence was offered to substantiate his claims, Freud was able to influence many people to pay a lot of money to lie on a couch week after week in search of solutions to their problems, real or imagined. Like Gall’s phrenology a century earlier, Freud’s psychoanalysis was eventually shown by scientists and other skeptics to be without credible evidence. Unlike Gall however, Freud’s ideas continue to influence many people’s beliefs and empty their wallets. For those interested in learning more about Freud‘s pseudoscience, Richard Webster’s Why Freud Was Wrong (1995), Allen Esterson’s Seductive Mirage (1993), and Elizabeth Loftus’ The Myth of Repressed Memory (1994) are good sources.

 

Exactly, Toplom. It's just like Darwin's theory of evolution, which is fantasy accepted as fact. It's unproven and unsubstantiated (not to mentioned dated), yet most of the conditioned public buy into it as if it's proven truth.

 

Non-violence is a new concept to some people.
In responce to the questions about personal protection, I can only say that so far in my life, I've never been in a situation where violence was the only way to protect myself or others. There has always been another option. I am glad that life is less restricitve than hypothetical situations.

Back to the issue of an armed populace. Would I be opening a can of worms if I asked what people are going to use their guns for when not actively resisting the police state. Hunting animals?

 

Certain people have turned this debate in an unproductive direction.

It should not be about whether you would/should resort to violence or not if faced with a particular situation. It should be about the fact that gun control is not about protecting the population from guns. It's about protecting the government, making the people powerless to the government's tyranny. The people arguing in favor of gun control do not seem to get this simple fact, continuing to support their own eventual enslavement.

That's all, end of story.

 

I agree that people claiming (and protecting) their power is the only effective way to resist oppression. The notion that there are no options is one of the most effective (and inexpensive) control mechanisms around. Free people should keep their options open.

 

Eternal Vigilance my friend. Eternal vigilance. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and MUST be CHECKED.

 

Paranoia will only annoy ya.

 

Firearms are not defensive. Well, a long rifle can deflect a blow aimed at you, but a length of pipe would be just as effective.

What most people mean by using a gun for defense is killing (or theatening to kill) someone that you think means to harm you.

Killing them first is a defensive only if you are certain of the intent of your opponent. A certain knowlege of your opponent's motivation opens other, better, methods of defence.

 

Firearms are not defensive? That's your own uninformed opinion. It is well recognized that guns can be offensive as well as defensive weapons. TO defend oneself is to carryout any action that would reduce harm to the self. This would include taking the life of someone who seeks to harm you. Read what you wrote VERY VERY carefully. I get the feeling you hate guns. It would explain your bias. 99.9% of legal gun owners are oustanding citizens, and more and more liberals are buying them due to their mistrust of the guvment. I see them at gun ranges alot these days.

 

Don't worry, it scared me the first it happened....