I hope they broke both of that little fuckers legs....badly enough that he can never drop kick anyone's back ever again.

Sucker drop kicking a 71 year old in the back, even one built like Conan, means he's abusing the privilege of being able to walk....remove the privilege. He was trying to seriously hurt an elderly man for fun. End him.

I also hope, assuming nothing serious happens to him legally because Arnold isn't pressing charges, that his classmates beat the living shit out of him daily until he's unable to finish school, and his family disowns him.

What a cowardly waste of skin. I wish Arnold (or the guards) had just broken him in half in self defense. There is zero sympathy for anything that happens to people who sucker punch/kick others, or those who attack the elderly, and nothing but seething murderous rage for those who do both.

Nail him to the tree of woe.

Edit: it's being widely reported that the attacker is known for doing this kind of thing looking for internet fame and publicity.

I would convict both cops for murder.
The command should have been to move away from the gun, which seemed to be in the door pocket from this view, or maybe his inside jacket pocket.
It wasn't in his hand until he followed their command...they shot because it was in his hand. That's murder.
This is why cops get shot doing traffic stops, self defense. If you're black and armed, legally or not, shoot first and claim self defense. It's much easier to get out of prison than the morgue, and get just one person like me on the jury and you'll never be convicted.

If you know it's an intruder (not family or a guest) that's not an accident, it's self defense.
If you don't know but shoot anyway, that's criminal negligence.

Maybe not, but there are plenty of angry, moronic, gullible 30 year olds in militias who hear this as a "self defense" defense to attempted murder. They really don't need much encouragement....just ask the Bundies supporters or Charlottesville skinheads.

That is wild.

It could be screaming at them in hornet-speak, with its 4 sets of blades. AAAAHHHHHHHDEATHTOYOUALLLLLLLAAAAAAA!!!!

It has self-defense, if any hornet heads to the drone and into the blades.

I usually just use a spray, or a flamethrower, if flammability allows.

No, not take Weinstein for example, that is an entirely different case and it undermines your position to use such an obvious straw man.

Society promotes the concept that men are violent, women are not. Any man that uses physical violence on a women is evil and if a woman raises a hand to a man and he strikes her in defense, he would still be the one that had to explain himself. Look at the Duluth model re: domestic violence sometime to see how truly baked in the myth that men are the perps and women are the vics...

https://medium.com/iron-ladies/men-are-still-pigs-the-politicization-of-domestic-violence-2cfa7488c204 (written by a woman for noting)

Particularly salient.

[i]It’s clear to me that despite the fact the Duluth Model has proven to be worthless, programs still adhere to the same principles. Men are still the automatic perpetrators, women are always victims. What’s worse is the men under attack by violent wives have no way of protecting themselves. Their right to self-defense in domestic violence cases has been cancelled.[/i]

I'm all for acknowledging that differences between the sexes is an absolutely real thing, but the long and the short of it is that women are basically allowed to assault men almost without consequences, but in the reverse situation the man would (justifiably) have the book thrown at him. And while men do have the physical advantage (although not always), they are hamstrung by society. The mere threat of a rape accusation (or far worse, the accusation that the husband has been abusing the kids) would silence most men in a heartbeat because they understand that the police, the judge, the social workers will believe the woman first.

Violence is wrong as is giving women a free pass because they rolled vagina in the game of life.

I like how he mentioned the inability of the CDC, due to regulations, to gather a comprehensive database on gun violence. As that seems to be an oft to ignored law. Undo that law, let the CDC gather all the various data points into one set, and then let that set be used for analysis. A gun used to commit a robbery, rape or other violent crime? That needs to be reported to the CDC database, along with any details known such as gun source, legality etc. A gunshot victim gets treated at a hospital or clinic, that gets reported to the CDC database along with cause, which in most cases is accidental. Suicide by gun, homicide by gun, mass shooting, all get put into that database. That data then can be used by all sides to support their cause, perhaps it will show that many of the proposed regulations would have little effect. I suspect, however, the fact that the gun lobby fights so hard to prevent the CDC from gathering the data for others to use, means they fear it will be far less favorable to their side.

I personally would be happy enough for now though for this step to be taken. So that we aren't making choices based on incomplete data and conjuncture.

I personally support the right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense. I'm not sure how an AR-15 or something like that would be useful in either case, short of an unrealistic scenario of a zombie apocalypse... and before the right-wingnuts suggest self-defense of in case of a military invasion, or from some odd right-wing fantasy of our own military, let me remind you of how well even better weapons and training worked out for the Branch Davidians. Admittedly, a military invasion scenario of either type is more likely than a zombie or otherwise apocalypse, but exceedingly low... Now if Trump gets us into WW3, and we lose power for years, and it becomes survival of the fittest, then there may be an argument, the solution to that, of course, is don't get the world into that situation with idiots like him at the wheel.

Cars drive and kill. True. And all the regulations he mentioned didn't stop one crazy guy hopping in a truck and saying "fuck you" and mowing down a hundred people. This is an important point because he's talking about firearm regulation in the context of mass shootings, and that firearm regulation will lessen or prevent these mass shootings - which he then compares to mass murder by vehicle, and vehicle regulation - regulation which clearly failed to stop any sort of purposeful mass murder by vehicle. Vehicle regulation is to lessen the impact of accidents and provide the government with a revenue stream through taxes. If vehicle regulation was to stop mass murder by vehicle, and you were to use Australia's firearm laws as a blueprint, you wouldn't be driving to work tomorrow.

The scary thing is, cars have killed more people by accident over the last 50 years in the USA than firearms have on purpose. That's how truly dangerous they are. If people woke up and realised they are a fantastic killing machine, then you'd start to see an increase in the incidence of mass vehicle killings... oh wait.

The reality is, from a public health discourse, there are plenty of things that kill at higher rates than firearms. The difference is that firearms are sometimes used to murder people and as far as we know most medical malpractice, car crashes, etc. are accidental. They are emotively tackled very differently.

PS: I'm not arguing against some firearm regulations being introduced in America. I'd use a modified version of New Zealand legislation (which allows for semi-auto long arms, high capacity magazines, etc.). I'd add self defense as a reason to own, and add concealed carry permits for those willing to do a course (with the catch that they would become a form of quasi-deputy of the state - so there would be hurdles to jump to get this permit).

Thoughts:

1) There has been a ban on sales of new, fully-automatic firearms ("machine guns") since 1986. That leaves some loopholes (can still buy them if they were manufactured before then, but that demand plus scarcity makes them expensive, etc.) but in general, there isn't a whole lot of uproar over that 20-year-old ban.

2) These bump-fire stocks don't technically convert a firearm into fully-automatic; the trigger is still being pulled 1 time for each bullet that comes out (semi-automatic).

3) However, they easily allow for rates of fire (bullets per minute/second) comparable to fully-automatic weapons. So, I think an unbiased and reasonable person would say that while a firearm equipped with one of these does not violate the letter of the ban on fully-automatic firearms, it does quite reasonably violate the spirit of that ban.

4) Doing anything to correct that discrepancy will require updated laws. Updating the law requires a legislature that generally supports the update and a president that agrees, or a legislature that overwhelmingly supports the update and can override a presidential veto.

5) None of that exists at the moment in the US. So, it is (perhaps coldly) logical to say that these bump-fire stocks will not be banned as an extension to the 1986 ban on full-auto firearms, at least not in the short term.

6) However, before quietly accepting that, it is worth noting that political fallout amongst those individuals in the legislature that refuse to consider updating the law is a very real possibility. Plenty of people, even on the right, even plenty of gun nuts, say that they are in favor of some degree of "common sense" gun control. Pointing out that bump-fire stocks essentially circumvent the already in-place ban on fully-automatic firearms seems like a good way to test that professed adherence to common sense.

7) Get that word out there, and pretty importantly, try to do it in a way that is as respectful towards the average "gun nut" as possible. Their minds can be swayed. Hunters, sportsmen, and even people that have guns for self defense can be persuaded with reason -- they can still do their thing even without bump-fire stocks, just like they can do their thing without fully-automatic firearms. Congresscritters probably can't be convinced, because they've already been bribed"persuaded" with campaign donations, NRA lobbyists, etc.


So, don't preach to the choir. Try to convince the people that do actually own guns. The good news? You've got "common sense" on your side.

Fighting on the street isn't even comparable to MMA. Not to take away from the hardness of any MMA fighter, but MMA is a sport. There are rules, and it's a safe environment (as safe as can be considering what happens in the octagon). You don't have to worry about the other guy poking your eye out or biting you, you probably won't die, etc.

The best thing for self defense is to be able to identify a dangerous situation, and get away from it using any means necessary, before it escalates. Getting into your car and driving away is the best thing you can do.

The other part of it is not looking like a victim, it's a body language thing.

And in these cases, Aikido is as good as any other martial art.


Having said that I'd still love to see someone use Aikido in an MMA match just for entertainment, because the only videos I've ever seen are ones like this, where the partner is going with the flow to avoid injury.


Actually now that I think about it, are you allowed to dislocate/break joints in MMA? Because the damage is likely to be permanent.

The driver has no idea what he's getting into when the cop is starting by violating procedure and using his weapon to pull over a car. The driver wants to go home after driving, see his family, make it to another day of life. If he feels he needs to shoot that cop drawing down on him over nothing to make sure he's safe...do it.
And I and others will stand here and support him for self defense while you have a conniption fit.

The only one making things unsafe here is the cop, who has made at least one if not more people unsupportive of other cops who may be doing their job properly and not with irrational or controlling fear causing them to put others lives in danger. If fear is the controlling factor in his actions, he absolutely should not be a law officer.

He will stand there while he receives dozens of complaints on his permanent record stopping him from ever being promoted, and while his trial for shooting an innocent person moves forward, and while his family leaves him due to the numerous death threats they receive, while he goes into hiding, and while normal citizens ridicule him daily for being exposed as a violent snowflake, etc.......I'm not sure what you're point was with that statement.

Two points.

Completely unreasonable to discharge a firearm in to a crowd like that, although I'm fairly sure that guy is drilled enough that he could accurately shoot someone at that range if he really wanted to. The guy has been charged, correct? Entirely appropriate.

Second, you notice the missiles incoming, the dickhead trying to turn a spray can in to a flamethrower? Do you honestly think these were isolated events? Do you not think that people prepared for this? Or does every person carry aerosols and lighters just for shits and giggles?

The pretext of antifa is that assaulting people is fine because it's proactive self defense, right? If it's okay to physically attack people for thinking and saying offensive things, then why the fuck is anyone complaining about someone drawing a weapon to defend others against an actual attack??? /grin

That's the problem when you justify unreasonable actions on one side, whether you like it or not you justify unreasonable actions for everyone.

And just to ice the cake, if you're dumb enough to show up with sticks/stones/cans of spray against the the white right who are well known to be armed to the motherfucking teeth, you might want to avoid poking the bear.

ps. Upvoted your vid because it should be seen (the more documentation about the whole shebang the better) and because I'm not a petty cunt... X D

Newt
your are so misguided.

The ANTIFA have been on a rampage of violence and intolerance.

The KKK have held many peaceful rallies over the years promoting their sick ways. Antifa are nothing but violence. Thungs not worthy of holding an American flag.

ANTIFA preach that Trump is a Fascist but are so wrong. Same goes for those who support Trump and other Americans that are sick of you radical kind.

So were were the cops/? Berkley they really protected the peace and in charlottesville???


If I went to an America first rally and knew you and your kind would be showing and bring you violence Yep I would be packing... Its called self defense.


TRUMP 2020 becomes more and more a reality every time ANTIFA show up. AND you know ANTIFA is making it happen. FUNNY.

2 things come to mind.

1 This shit will get Trump re elected.
2 Just a matter of time when guns are pulled in self defense.

Ok 3 things
3 Alex Jones is a wack job.

i think you guys are missing the point of this video.this video was not produced for YOU.

this is a dog whistle video for those who identify as "right" leaning politically,and may be on the fence in regards to the alt-right.they may adhere to more conservative and traditional values but find the alt-right a tad to extreme,a tad too racist and neo-fascist.

and they most likely already find "leftists" and "liberals" offensive to their political sensibilities.

and here we have a video showing "lefties" perpetrating violence on innocent,rightwing by-standers..you know..their peeps.

so you watch with indignation and disbelief,while the rightwingers watches in horror and fear.this video is meant to do just that:instill fear and prompt a person to action and to view this action as righteous self-defense.

this is identity politics,pure and simple.

and now we have TWO extremists groups growing,and BOTH are convinced of their righteous convictions that THEY have a RIGHT..no..a DUTY..to perpetrate violence in the name of their ideology.

well,it is not EVERYBODY..

yeah..no shit sherlock.we get that.
not everyone is a neo-fascist,racist,super white nationalist.

nor are they all communists and black bloc anarchists.

but it IS those two groups who have adopted extremist ideologies that in their little pea brains have given them the moral authority to fuck some people up.

and THIS fucking video is a goddamn recruitment video for the neo-fascists!

communists and black bloc anarchists on my left..
racist neo fascists on my right..
here i am...
stuck in the middle...

*related=https://videosift.com/video/ANTIFA-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right