Active Users:388 Time:06/07/2025 02:26:07 PM
All I heard was "no one 'needs' guns." - Edit 2

Before modification by Joel at 17/07/2015 11:08:29 AM


View original postBeing unarmed does not equal "not a threat" and is a silly argument no matter how man times we he it used by the "head up their ass can't breath" crowd.

And its corollary "Everyone from sleeping children to geriatric invalids can easily overpower people held to strict physical fitness standards, trained to not only defend themselves but SUBDUE OTHERS and armed with at LEAST two of their own forms of lethal force." Some recent examples:

1) Cops serving a warrant burst into a NEIGHBORS home, opened fire and instantly killed a girl sleeping in her grandmothers arms; the parents understandably burst in on hearing the shots, so cops pinned the father face down in the rapidly growing blood pool of his daughters blood beside her corpse, cuffed and arrested him, then forced the mother to sit amid her dead daughters gore on the couch for several hours during interrogation before arresting her too. In the interim, cops got a judge to RETROACTIVELY add the house to the warrant, and later excused themselves by claiming the grandmother grabbed the barrel of a gun a cop had already drawn gun (even if true, wtf was she supposed to do when a crowd of men broke into her home pointing guns at her and her grandchild?)

2) In my moms tiny town of 1400, cops from another town served a warrant issued for an address in yet a THIRD town (i.e. both the residence on the warrant and that searched were out of the cops' jurisdiction,) jumped an elderly couples fence and, on noticing their dog in the yard, immediately shot it per the standard "on arrival immediately disarm suspects of all weapons, in the case of dog-weapons, by execution."

3) Cops serving a warrant blindly tossed a flash grenade without bothering to even LOOK where they were throwing it: The playpen of a one-year-old baby the cops nearly killed. A jury refused to indict them for any crime though, just as no cop nor anyone else is paying the $1 million medical fees to save the babys life and put his face and chest back together again. The family can probably afford it though; it is not as if they were only there in the first place because relatives took them in after they lost their own house in a fire.

Only ONE family was black, but does it MATTER which? Apparently, because only members of the respective victims races raised Hell about them. When victims are white conservatives scream, "TYRANNY!" but liberals are mute; when victims are black liberals scream "BRUTALITY!" but conservatives are mute (or worse, defend the latest Ruby Ridge.) We can all keep doing that until murderers with badges put every last one of us in nicely segregated cemetaries, but rather than dividing against each other to AID a common threat, unifying AGAINST it would make far more sense.

Those sleeping children and that family pet were surely "threats" though, and LETHAL ones, since ONLY lethal threats legally justify lethal force.

See the face of a brutally violent 19-month-old criminal (or what remains of his face)

Return to message