"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:41, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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.
That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.
I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?
AND ?
If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.
I'm so sorry that your "feeling of security" is based on ignorance.
Are you claining that when it comes down to it, you are NOT responsible
for YOUR security and that of your loved ones ?
And instead are willing to be irresponsible and depend on others for it ?
If one day a criminal decides to invade your home, or attack you on the
street, - How will you respond ?
Will you do like so many Europeans did about 60 years ago ?
Obediently go along and be shipped of to camps to be disposed of ?
In the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice the criminals than the
police do
Yet at the same time, the allegedly highly trained police shoot over 6
times more innocent bystanders, than plain old citizens do. (That should
raise some flags about who is a safer to you than not).
Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a
willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and
your fellow citizens.
That is blatant nonsense!
If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few
problems, than to send in troops.
HELLO ???
Earth to TH..
Come in TH...
What are you blabbering about ?
What "troops have been sent" for what "crimes" ??
Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they
run around with arms.
1) NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is claiming that "crimes were unavoidable"
Your stupid strawman - you feed it
2) NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is claiming that people "could only survive, if they
run around with arms"
Your stupid strawman - you feed it
3) But there is also NO GUARANTEE that you will not be the target of a
criminal
And no matter what and how much social engineering you attempt -
there will be criminals and there will be people targeted by those
criminals.
As to your cheap slur of a "degenerate society"...
My metric for that is as follows.
A society that allows
- the murder of over 6 million people in the same number of years
- the murder of over 50 million people in a neighboring country in the
same number of years
- starts and participates in a couple of wars that result in the deaths
of millions of people, military and civilian in a single century
- that consistently disarms it's population to make them helpless against
criminals both in and out of governments
Ironically, the above describe YOUR country and your neighbors
Yet it does NOT apply to the US
Maybe you need to look at yourself, and the history of your people and
countries before you do cheap and ignorant slander on others
The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why you
have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in these
organisations.
So how does YOUR country live up to that standard over say the last 100
years ?
You're real strong on theory but fail miserably on execution.
The Opposite seems to be true for the US
In the US, historically most people have ALWAYS viewed themselves as the
"first responders" to bad situations. This is actually a continuation of
what was true in England up to WWII.
And therefore, it's part of the mindset that you do NOT sit around and wait
for the "authorities" to come and solve your problems and fix thing for you.
That has been changing (for the worse) with the increasing number of people
buying into the "socialist" mindset that you spout above
Here is a most appropriate editorial comment that appeared today that talks
about this issue..
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...vidualism.aspx
So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If people
in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy, employed,
sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa)
More ivory-tower theory totally disconnected from reality
It sure sounds good
And idiots like you have been spouting that nonsense since Rousseau
But then when we actually LOOK at your history and see how that theory has
panned out over time, we realize that it's nice fantasy totally UNRELATED to
reality.
If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.
Are you claiming that Americans who CHOOSE to:
own firearms
carry firearms as allowed by law
are "psychopaths"
Are you really this much of an ignorant bigoted prejudiced idiot ?
Or did you have a bad fall recently and suffered a concussion ?
This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public. This general public in return controls the police - to keep the
policemen within the bounds of the law.
Again with the nice theory..
How has that been working for say the last 100 years in Europe ?
And then there is the problem is that in most countries, ALTHOUGH there is a
belief that the police have a duty to protect them, there is probably also
some law that states that they have no such duty or responsibility
IN the US, we have 2 US Supreme Court Decisions (Warner, I believe, is the
name of one) which CLEARLY STATE, that unless you have a previous
relationship (such as witness protection), the police have NO DUTY to come
to the aid or protect individual citizens.
So, MOST DEFINITELY in the US, your theory is pure fantasy..
The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting range.
But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out their
troubles with firearms.
What exactly do you mean by "carry out their troubles with firearms"
Is that some stupid code for criminal behavior ?
And what do propose that a person being held up at an ATM do ?
Dial 911 and hope for the best ?
How about a woman who is being assaulted, with the possibility of being
raped or even killed in the immediate future ?
Should she also dial 911 and hope for the best ??
Fortunately in the US, we are far more civilized than people in degenerate
societies like yours
We STILL believe that people HAVE A RIGHT NOT to be the victims of
criminals, whether those criminals are civilian or government agents...
To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have).
TOTAL IGNORANT BULL****
I doubt that the laws in your country are any more "understandable and
practical" that US laws
But hey, go ahead and prove me wrong..
This is why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the
civil armament.
I would recommend instead that you get yourself an education in history and
law
Then you would stop spouting such arrant nonsense based on stupid
presumptions that are based on abyssal ignorance...