Thomas Heger wrote in
:

Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith:
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could
stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save
your arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators
want you silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt,
that such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try
to reacquire control about all elements of the society: the
communities, politics, education, health-care, nutrition,
transportation, military and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want
their country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like
misery, violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment,
remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but
don't carry a gun around.

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have
any influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is
definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual
disorder, known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace
with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler
any time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to
large amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick
fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn
short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit,
but it dies ...

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally
important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart
and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men
brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America
... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the
importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which
exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply
ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already
looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a
coward, or not ...

Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say.
(If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you
need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.)
I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this
could be necessary?

I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems
not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend
themselves against the own government.

Are you insane? You are German and you can't imagine why someone might not
care for thier government? Did they teach you about Uncle Adolph in school,
boy.

Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the governed. When
the government becomes harmful to the governed it must go. How messy that
will be depends on how much the government resists. Normally and election
or an indictment solve the problem. Other times it does not.

Also, your forebears would be very dissapointed in you using a pistol
against an armored vehicle. In fact many times less than bright people have
made the argument that it's not realistic to fight an armored vehicle with
a pistol. Well, no ****. Who do you think is stupid enough to deploy a
platoon of pistol armed militia against a platoon of tanks?

Tanks require fuel, water, ammo and spare parts. They require people to
operate them and they require food, water, clothing and various amenities
to survive. If you can interdict them before it gets to the tank, why you
remove all the advantages of the thick armored shell.

And while I get that you won't understand this, in our country the
givernment will find that the troops will not neccessarily make war on the
civilians. Their oath is to the Constitution and ultimately to the People,
not to some transient tramp in the White House.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.