Anonymous Threatens Massive WikiLeaks-Style Exposure

nilepez said:
I wouldn't support a ban on guns, but your claim that large clips keeps America safe from the government is total laughable. That was true when the weapons of the military were the same as the weapons of the people, but that hasn't been true for at least 100 years. even if you could legally buy a F16, you couldn't afford it, much less fly it. Maybe it's just me, but I'm perfectly fine with not letting people own nukes, grenades, tanks and so on.

The erosion of the 4th amendment over the last 40 years is far greater than the 2nd.
Click to expand...

How about this argument? If a few criminals with guns were invading my home, I'd sure as hell like to have more than 10 rounds which with to defend my family? I'm not a bad shot, but I don't get to the range weekly like I once did, and I don't expect a criminal threatening my family would stand still like a paper target does on the range. Nor would I want to face armed criminals standing out in the open in a good shooter's stance.

What that means is that I would expect that I would miss, and that even my hits very well might not be disabling wounds.

Extra magazines help, but the criminals are more likely to be prepared well than the victims, and it's not like you want to be fumbling around in the dark for magazines before running to check if your kids are ok.

A criminal intent on mass murder will likely bring along lots of extra magazines, and it doesn't take long to change them out with practice. Even if the slide locks back they would be able to reload before their victims will have a chance to realize a reload is needed and take even a couple steps. The people most likely to be effected by magazine size restrictions are law abiding citizens, not criminals.
 
Internet's "Anonymous" are the modern equivalent to anarchist and vigilantes. They hide behind proxys, port forwarders, and zombie machines, to execute their own form of "social justice". They abuse the internet for which it was created: The internet is a tool to openly communicate, share ideas, knowledge, and information. No one group is wrong. No one group is right. Anonymous however becomes judge, jury and executioner, which is my book is wrong. They are mostly young idealogs and script kiddies run amuck, threatening to ruin the internet for everyone.

If you don't agree with the government, then you actively participate in a political group to change it. You don't hide. Look at what our founding fathers, Libya, Egypt, and Syria had to do to get "change".

Could I become a target for actively criticizing them? Possibly. But it would go to prove their hypocricy.
 
Yes, Anonymous are terrorists. The US-GOV is fair, honest, and unbiased. Yes, the people wanted change with Obama and they got it then too! Change it is, all through the normal routes....yup!
 
flatrock said:
How about this argument? If a few criminals with guns were invading my home, I'd sure as hell like to have more than 10 rounds which with to defend my family? I'm not a bad shot, but I don't get to the range weekly like I once did, and I don't expect a criminal threatening my family would stand still like a paper target does on the range. Nor would I want to face armed criminals standing out in the open in a good shooter's stance.

What that means is that I would expect that I would miss, and that even my hits very well might not be disabling wounds.

Extra magazines help, but the criminals are more likely to be prepared well than the victims, and it's not like you want to be fumbling around in the dark for magazines before running to check if your kids are ok.

A criminal intent on mass murder will likely bring along lots of extra magazines, and it doesn't take long to change them out with practice. Even if the slide locks back they would be able to reload before their victims will have a chance to realize a reload is needed and take even a couple steps. The people most likely to be effected by magazine size restrictions are law abiding citizens, not criminals.
Click to expand...
are you really trying to use the argument that you need to spray bullets around indiscriminately in order to hit a potential threat knowing full well that you're more likely to miss your target as a reason for larger clip sizes?
 
mope54 said:
are you really trying to use the argument that you need to spray bullets around indiscriminately in order to hit a potential threat knowing full well that you're more likely to miss your target as a reason for larger clip sizes?
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to explain all the factors that go into a home invasion? How many times has your home been broken into? How many times have you been home for it? How did you react? Were you able to call the cops before the intruders were able to get to you? How long did it take for the cops to show up? Were you able to secure a room with a locked door? Did you have any defensive weapons?

In other words, unless you've been in a situation where your life and the life of your loved ones is on the line, who are you to question whether or not someone needs a legal self-defense option?

And for reference, there was a woman recently in Georgia that pumped six rounds into a guy who invaded their home, missed ONCE...and he not only survived, but he got up and fled. If there had been a second intruder, or if he hadn't fled, she would have wanted more rounds. I guess you know better, though.
 
Stiletto said:
Are you really trying to explain all the factors that go into a home invasion? How many times has your home been broken into? How many times have you been home for it? How did you react? Were you able to call the cops before the intruders were able to get to you? How long did it take for the cops to show up? Were you able to secure a room with a locked door? Did you have any defensive weapons?
Click to expand...

As someone once said, "The first thing you do when someone breaks into your home violently is call someone with lots of bullets (the cops) and pray they get there in time." I prefer not to pray when my families life is on the line.

If you think an armed citizenry can not make a difference against government full of F-16's and tanks, tell that to Russians against the old Soviet Union, The Syrians, The Egyptions, the Libyans...etc.

Change can happen if you motivate the people. But you must be willing to spill your own blood, and not coward.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
As someone once said, "The first thing you do when someone breaks into your home violently is call someone with lots of bullets (the cops) and pray they get there in time." I prefer not to pray when my families life is on the line.

If you think an armed citizenry can not make a difference against government full of F-16's and tanks, tell that to Russians against the old Soviet Union, The Syrians, The Egyptions, the Libyans...etc.

Change can happen if you motivate the people. But you must be willing to spill your own blood, and not coward.
Click to expand...

It's getting closer. They're admitting their purpose now.
 
Stiletto said:
Are you really trying to explain all the factors that go into a home invasion? How many times has your home been broken into? How many times have you been home for it? How did you react? Were you able to call the cops before the intruders were able to get to you? How long did it take for the cops to show up? Were you able to secure a room with a locked door? Did you have any defensive weapons?

In other words, unless you've been in a situation where your life and the life of your loved ones is on the line, who are you to question whether or not someone needs a legal self-defense option?

And for reference, there was a woman recently in Georgia that pumped six rounds into a guy who invaded their home, missed ONCE...and he not only survived, but he got up and fled. If there had been a second intruder, or if he hadn't fled, she would have wanted more rounds. I guess you know better, though.
Click to expand...

And what if there were 2 intruders and she scare them away with 6 shots? You'd then say "What if there were 3 intruders." And then if there were 3 intruders and she shot each of them twice and they still fled, you would be saying "What if there were 4 intruders?" You'll keep saying that until there is literally a small nation's worth of people trying to invade a home, and the home owner will then have to reload their gun.

Why not give people flame throwers or grenades? Not too much of a chance to miss with those. Landmines? Tripwires? Where will it end?

Morever, if someone breaking into your house doesn't wake you up in enough time to call the police, then they're not going to wake you up in enough time for you to get to your gun and to fight them off. And the best goal is to get them out of your house. If you can remove an intruder from your home without exposing yourself to any danger at all, then it is infinitely preferable to attempting to shoot them.
 
ballistic90 said:
Why not give people flame throwers or grenades? Not too much of a chance to miss with those. Landmines? Tripwires? Where will it end?
Click to expand...

A recent "gun buyback" program in LA yielded rocket launchers. Those are illegal.

Guns are heavily controlled in Mexico, yet they have extreme problems with violence.

During the 70's Washington DC outlawed owning guns in the home (2nd amendment doesn't apply to a federal district they claimed) The end result: DC's homocide rate skyrocketed, when teh national average went down.

Chicago also has some of the most strict gun control laws. And look where they are now? One of the most deadly and violent cities in the USA.

Switzerland has some of the worlds most relaxed gun laws. They have zero issues. It's a matter of national pride to handle guns properly.

And none of the Arab countries want to take on Israel head on in a land war because every citizen is trained in the use of firearms, and most own one. Several previous wars proved disasterous for countries like Egypt for this very reason.

Law abiding citizens don't abuse guns. It's the criminals and psychologically troubled that abuse guns. And they can find weapons any time they want. Just like pirates can torrent movies any time they want. Laws only inconvience law abiding people.

It's stupidity to try to legislate human behavior.
 
ballistic90 said:
And what if there were 2 intruders and she scare them away with 6 shots?
Click to expand...

Then she's fine. What if they weren't scared away?

You'd then say "What if there were 3 intruders." And then if there were 3 intruders and she shot each of them twice and they still fled, you would be saying "What if there were 4 intruders?" You'll keep saying that until there is literally a small nation's worth of people trying to invade a home, and the home owner will then have to reload their gun.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything of the kind. You don't know as much as you think you do.

Why not give people flame throwers or grenades? Not too much of a chance to miss with those. Landmines? Tripwires? Where will it end?
Click to expand...

Let me know when you've got citizens demanding flame throwers, grenades, landmines, or tripwires to defend themselves. Until then, take your pathetic strawman and shove it up your ass. I'm sick and tired of people like you who take "I don't want my semi-automatic rifle banned" and translate it into "I GETS TANKS AND JETS AND I BLOW U UP LOLZ". You're sheep running from media scare stories.

I could just as easily say that an assault rifle is the best self-defense weapon anyone in a poor neighborhood could hope to have, and that anyone who wants to deny them that right hates the poor, or hates lower-income families, or wants high-crime neighborhoods to be even more dangerous. I might as well, since people like you pull that same shit on a daily basis to back up your thirst for taking away the rights of others.

Morever, if someone breaking into your house doesn't wake you up in enough time to call the police, then they're not going to wake you up in enough time for you to get to your gun and to fight them off. And the best goal is to get them out of your house. If you can remove an intruder from your home without exposing yourself to any danger at all, then it is infinitely preferable to attempting to shoot them.
Click to expand...

And how do you do that, eh? Telekenesis? Asking them politely? Jabbing at them with a broom?

And even if you heard them breaking in and called the police, you've got an average of four minutes to wait before they arrive. How about we put you in a standard ranch house, unarmed, and we'll give a violent offender four minutes' time to see what they want to do inside your house. No weapons for you, but we're not going to tell you whether he is armed, or with what. Let's see how you "remove" them.
 
ballistic90 said:
And what if there were 2 intruders and she scare them away with 6 shots? You'd then say "What if there were 3 intruders." And then if there were 3 intruders and she shot each of them twice and they still fled, you would be saying "What if there were 4 intruders?"
Click to expand...

How about a girl walking alone or with her boyfriend, down an empty street late at night on her way home...and a gang is following her with malicious intent. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
How about a girl walking alone or with her boyfriend, down an empty street late at night on her way home...and a gang is following her with malicious intent. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
Click to expand...

Right now, ballistic is rolling his eyes with increasing frustration. How dare you suggest such situations? They don't happen. The world is a big, safe, wonderful place full of rainbows and unicorn farts. Besides, preparing for the future is a drag, man.
 
Stiletto said:
And even if you heard them breaking in and called the police, you've got an average of four minutes to wait before they arrive.
Click to expand...

Four minutes? Where'd you get that from? My understanding was that the national average was ~11 minutes, and that was before the economy took a dump and the laid a bunch of cops off. (In the city of course, good luck if you're waiting for a sheriff in the county.)
 
bh192012 said:
Four minutes? Where'd you get that from? My understanding was that the national average was ~11 minutes, and that was before the economy took a dump and the laid a bunch of cops off. (In the city of course, good luck if you're waiting for a sheriff in the county.)
Click to expand...

I called the police about 3 years ago for gunshots in my old apartment complex (heard 2 .45 shots). The dispatcher said "are you sure it wasn't a car backfiring?" I responded Yeah, not only do I know what a car backfiring sounds like, I can tell you it sounds absolutely nothing like the .45 that was shot maybe 100 feet from my window.

They sent a car, it took about 11-12 minutes to get there. At the time I lived about 3-4 miles from the police station, one that has about 35-40 cars.

So yeah, if anyone thinks I'm going to rely on police to come to the rescue... You're insane. They are there to arrest people after they commit crimes and call the coroner to pick up your corpse.

For the record I had my 92fs in hand before I dialed 911. Instinct is self preservation, instinct lead me to a way to defend myself not rely on someone 10+ minutes away.
 
bh192012 said:
Four minutes? Where'd you get that from? My understanding was that the national average was ~11 minutes, and that was before the economy took a dump and the laid a bunch of cops off. (In the city of course, good luck if you're waiting for a sheriff in the county.)
Click to expand...

The four minute estimate is by city estimates, and quite definitely much slower depending on what are you're in. In almost every city over a million people there are areas that have been de facto surrendered to gangs or organized crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top