Yes, you joke, but in a society like the UK you ultimately end up with only two choices: continue to be one of the enslaved or join the criminal class. The more money you have the longer you can delay facing the inevitable. If you've got enough money you may be able to delay until you die, but it's not likely to work out that way for your children.Abraham wrote:The way around this is to claim you're the attacker and the other guy defended himself - so the other guy is at fault and you may skip merrily away...
(just joking)
Search found 2 matches
Return to “UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers”
- Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:50 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers
- Replies: 8
- Views: 813
Re: UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers
- Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:31 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers
- Replies: 8
- Views: 813
UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015052 ... rape-alarm
This is the model for the anti-gun psychopaths in this country.
This is the model for the anti-gun psychopaths in this country.
Better be careful blowing that rape whistle....wouldn't want to hurt the rapist's ears.The question at issue asks, “Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”
And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.” So even in the sanctity of one’s home, the statement seems to suggest that care for violent offenders outweighs the rights of potential victims to be safe and secure against attack.
The statement then addresses the legality of inert dye sprays that merely mark one’s attacker for later identification; in contrast to self-defense sprays like mace or pepper spray that inflict pain in order to halt an attack. The site is so concerned with the well-being of violent criminals, that in the context of dye sprays, it states,“be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.”