dpnewell
13 years ago
You've probably all heard by now how a couple Muslims hacked a British soldier to pieces in broad daylight, while Brits stood around and watched. The murderers then stood around yelling their rhetoric for 20 minutes, waiting for the police to show up. Folks standing around, filming these killers for 20 stinking minutes, and no one did a thing. A British soldier butchered in broad daylight, and it took police 20 minutes to show. Can you imagine, that if these killers wanted to butcher others, how many of these unarmed, helpless sheep they could have killed in 20 minutes? The entire scenario is unthinkable to me.

So it got me thinking. Many libs (not all) seem to think that an unarmed US population would be narvana. If we could just get guns and knives out of the hands of the law abiding God and gun clingers, we would all stand around, hold hands and sing kumbaya. Killers would stop killing, terrorists would stop terrorizing, and all would be well with the world.

Well the Brits have been disarmed for some time now, and it looks like they're turned into a bunch of helpless sheep. Killers can murder without any resistance from the population. No attempt to stop the murderer, no attempt to apprehend the killers, just stand around talking to them and taking videos.

So, is this the kind of America we should have? One where Americans are passive sheep who allow criminals and murders to do their thing unhindered, because stopping them is the job of the police, and no one else? Of course that's when or if the police actually do show up.

Discuss.
wheelrite
13 years ago
Bro all bullchit aside,,,

That would never have happened in TX, where the are good citizens are carrying,,,

Britain is the Mecca for citizen disarmament,,,

wheel,
rfenst
13 years ago
Edited:

Seriously, who really gives a chit what happens over there and how they live their lives? Delving in to this is a wet dream for some.

Rhetorically and sarcastically, would simple summary execution in all settings care of everything?

Legally, shooting them while they stood around after killing the soldier, would likely lead to a prison sentence because the only time lethal force is permitted is when one or others are in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

(P.S. I fully support the right to carry and conceal under permit.)
DadZilla3
13 years ago

Who really gives a chit what happens over there and how they live their lives? Delving in to this is a wet dream for some. Simple, summary execution in all settings would take care of everything.

rfenst wrote:


No, not summary execution in all settings. Not for lane changing on the freeway without signaling first, for example.
fiddler898
13 years ago

No, not summary execution in all settings. Not for lane changing on the freeway without signaling first, for example.

DadZilla3 wrote:


Actually, that would probably get you killed in Massachusetts.
paulkeck
13 years ago

Bro all bullchit aside,,,

That would never have happened in TX, where the are good citizens are carrying,,,

Britain is the Mecca for citizen disarmament,,,

wheel,

wheelrite wrote:


just was gonna say that there is no way!! i would stand by and watch that. Got my chl this year and as long as it took there are a whole lot more Texans doing the same that chit wouldnt happen here with out a fight from some people
HockeyDad
13 years ago

Legally, shooting them while they stood around after killing the soldier, would likely lead to a prison sentence because the only time lethal force is permitted is when one or others are in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

rfenst wrote:




Once the police arrived they actually did shoot both of them while they were just standing around. Better late than never.
victor809
13 years ago
What does this have to do with an "Unarmed population"?

You wouldn't have tried to stop this unless you had a gun on you? This is the biggest problem I have with the "pro-gun" groups (and I'm pro-2nd amendment) is that having a gun seems to be a requirement for a set of balls for them.

WTF. If you see something you actually believe is wrong, be willing to sacrifice your body a bit. Jump in.

Seriously... if you need to have a gun in your hand to be willing to kill someone you don't actually want them dead.
DrafterX
13 years ago
Ram has a bat... [ram27bat]
teedubbya
13 years ago
You see.... this is exactly why I am for a flat tax, with a flat tax this would never happen


NEW YORK (AP) — For decades, people have been getting rid of cockroaches by setting out bait mixed with poison. But in the late 1980s, in an apartment test kitchen in Florida, something went very wrong.

A killer product stopped working. Cockroach populations there kept rising. Mystified researchers tested and discarded theory after theory until they finally hit on the explanation: In a remarkably rapid display of evolution at work, many of the cockroaches had lost their sweet tooth, rejecting the corn syrup meant to attract them.

In as little as five years, the sugar-rejecting trait had become so widespread that the bait had been rendered useless.

"Cockroaches are highly adaptive, and they're doing pretty well in the arms race with us," said North Carolina State University entomologist Jules Silverman, discoverer of the glucose aversion in that Florida kitchen during a bait test.

The findings illustrate the evolutionary prowess that has helped make cockroaches so hard to stamp out that it is jokingly suggested they could survive nuclear war.

In a study published Thursday in the journal Science, Silverman and other researchers explain the workings of the genetic mutation that gave some roaches a competitive advantage that enabled them to survive and multiply.

The key is certain neurons that signal the brain about foods.

In normal cockroaches, glucose excites neurons that tell the brain "Sweet!" In the mutant insects, glucose activates neurons that say "Sweet!" and ones that say "Yuck!" The "Yuck!" neurons dampen the signal from the others, so the brain gets the message the taste is awful. This unusual nerve activity appeared in glucose-hating cockroaches collected from Puerto Rico as well as descendants of the Florida insects.

The research focused on the German cockroach, a small kind that can hitch a ride into your home in a grocery bag, not that big lunk known as the American cockroach. Such finicky eating habits have also been seen in these smaller roaches in Southern California, Cincinnati, Indiana, South Korea and Russia. Scientists are now looking to see if other kinds of cockroaches show aversion to glucose.

The new work is nifty science. But does it explain why you can't get rid of the little buggers in your kitchen?

Probably not, said Coby Schal, another study author at North Carolina State.

Tests show that the glucose-hating cockroaches are happy to eat most types of bait these days, suggesting that manufacturers have removed the glucose or masked it, he said. (Bait ingredients are a trade secret.) What's more, the researchers found glucose-hating cockroaches in only seven of 19 populations they sampled from various locations.

Frankly, if the bait you put out isn't working, it's probably because you're using it incorrectly, suggested Schal, who said he consults to the pesticide industry free of charge.

Still, he said, the new work has potential to help many consumers. By studying how cockroaches evolve to evade our poisons, scientists may find clues to designing bait that the pests cannot resist.

It's not clear when the Florida cockroaches first encountered bait with glucose or how quickly they ditched their taste for the sugar, he said. But he said it's reasonable to estimate that it took maybe only five years for that glucose aversion to spread to so many cockroaches that the bait was no longer effective. That's about 25 generations of German cockroaches, which can reproduce about one to three months after they're born, Schal said.

The glucose aversion may have arisen in an individual cockroach in response to bait. Or it may have already been present in just a few individuals when the arrival of the bait suddenly gave them an advantage for surviving and reproducing. Their offspring would inherit the trait and increasingly replace other cockroaches.

Michael Scharf, an entomologist at Purdue University who studies urban pests but wasn't involved in the new work, noted that since the 1950s, cockroaches have shown they can also evolve resistance to insecticides. He agreed the latest results should help scientists develop better products to control roaches.
bloody spaniard
13 years ago

Once the police arrived they called the real police who carried guns while they stood around. Better late than never.

HockeyDad wrote:



👍

Looks as though the multicultural experiment is working out GREAT there, in Scandinavia, and in the rest of the Western world! 👍 👍
DrafterX
13 years ago
dpnewell
13 years ago

What does this have to do with an "Unarmed population"?

You wouldn't have tried to stop this unless you had a gun on you? This is the biggest problem I have with the "pro-gun" groups (and I'm pro-2nd amendment) is that having a gun seems to be a requirement for a set of balls for them.

WTF. If you see something you actually believe is wrong, be willing to sacrifice your body a bit. Jump in.

Seriously... if you need to have a gun in your hand to be willing to kill someone you don't actually want them dead.

victor809 wrote:



No where did I ever say that I wouldn't have reacted without a gun. You're making unfounded assumptions. What I'm saying is that the disarming of the Brits, as well as laws that only allow you to defend yourself with like force (can't use a knife to defend against a strong arm attack, can't use a gun against a knife attack, etc.), has turned them into passive sheep. What I hear from many of the antis is that Britain is a weapon control Utopea that we should emulate. Is a society of passive sheep, that won't even react to evil, because it's "the police's job", be something we should desire here?
dpnewell
13 years ago

Edited:

Seriously, who really gives a chit what happens over there and how they live their lives? Delving in to this is a wet dream for some.

Rhetorically and sarcastically, would simple summary execution in all settings care of everything?

Legally, shooting them while they stood around after killing the soldier, would likely lead to a prison sentence because the only time lethal force is permitted is when one or others are in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

(P.S. I fully support the right to carry and conceal under permit.)

rfenst wrote:



Robert,
Where did I ever call for summary executions? I just can't understand a society where folks just stood around, and allowed evil to happen, because they've been told over and over again by the powers that be, that it's not "their job" to intervene.

Yes, I own guns for self defense, but I also pray to God that I never, ever have to use them.
bloody spaniard
13 years ago
Dpn, at some point, your weapons will be rendered useless by law and summary legal confiscation by the State. It will be done piecemeal and it is inevitable.
At that point, your conundrum will be, could I do anything differently from the Brits?

Weapons and protection aside, IMO, the real problem lies with unrestricted immigration policies not so much the indigenous peoples who have a right to be "unfearful" in their own land whether armed or not. Being armed would just give them a semblance of security until they're surrounded by cleaver- wielding savages.
victor809
13 years ago

No where did I ever say that I wouldn't have reacted without a gun. You're making unfounded assumptions. What I'm saying is that the disarming of the Brits, as well as laws that only allow you to defend yourself with like force (can't use a knife to defend against a strong arm attack, can't use a gun against a knife attack, etc.), has turned them into passive sheep. What I hear from many of the antis is that Britain is a weapon control Utopea that we should emulate. Is a society of passive sheep, that won't even react to evil, because it's "the police's job", be something we should desire here?

dpnewell wrote:



That's a false connection.
There's no evidence showing a link between lack of access to guns and people's unwillingness to be involved in a violent altercation. If that were the case, prisons would be the safest place ever.

Your entire premise is false. Yes, I think it's a problem that people waited around and weren't willing to challenge 2 guys with cleavers. That doesn't have anything to do with gun laws, unless you're assuming that people who own guns don't have the guts to get involved in something unless they're packing.
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

That's a false connection.
There's no evidence showing a link between lack of access to guns and people's unwillingness to be involved in a violent altercation. If that were the case, prisons would be the safest place ever.

Your entire premise is false. Yes, I think it's a problem that people waited around and weren't willing to challenge 2 guys with cleavers. That doesn't have anything to do with gun laws, unless you're assuming that people who own guns don't have the guts to get involved in something unless they're packing.

victor809 wrote:




Spare us the sobbing...it's no Georgetown but they'll take it...riight?
ZRX1200
13 years ago
I reallt dislike blanket statements about people of any party.

Repubes don't fully represent me and their actions are their own. Airing grievences and attacking a letter on a voting card are different to me.

Both parties are largely birds of the same feather in regaurds to us all losing our liberties. Voting fraud is rampant as are dependents and idiot voters. Welcome to Amerika, make sure you do your part to support your bank masters and be a good consumer. It's patriotic.
wheelrite
13 years ago

That's a false connection.
There's no evidence showing a link between lack of access to guns and people's unwillingness to be involved in a violent altercation. If that were the case, prisons would be the safest place ever.

Your entire premise is false. Yes, I think it's a problem that people waited around and weren't willing to challenge 2 guys with cleavers. That doesn't have anything to do with gun laws, unless you're assuming that people who own guns don't have the guts to get involved in something unless they're packing.

victor809 wrote:



Blah blah blah....

I'm sure you would've put on your Super Commie Man suit and cape and would've taken care of the bad guys,,,

:-"
DrafterX
13 years ago
I thought he was Batman..?? 😕
Users browsing this topic