Am 06.10.2011 15:59, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty"
for far longer than Americans have.
Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what.

OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need
these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for?


I'm so sorry that you are so myopic
You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions
Who said that:
1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ?
2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ?
3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed
with BIG guns ?
- Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in
large numbers
4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals
- try criminals as an althernate threat
5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ?

Ok I don't understand the US society!


YES !
I agree you do not
But thanks for admitting that much
It's a good start

If a country has a certain population and has a government and all
sorts of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should
somehow work for the country - and not against.


Well that's nice..
But what does that have to do with anything ?

A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the
society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach
their kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no
less.


OK.
And ?


If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of
justice to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted.


BZZZT
You seem to confused about the role of the police
1) The police do NOT "bring justice to a district"...
Instead, the police
- are part of the SYSTEM to enforce the laws of the district
- usually show up AFTER a crime is committed

I hope!

but you seem to suggest, the policemen showed up before the crime was
committed (and left after).

- usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT

In Germany we have a distinction between police and a sort of police for
criminal investigation, called 'Kriminalpolizei'. (The ones, that
collect evidence)

Police has a specific monopoly (in Germany) and that is, what gives the
police a special role. Nobody is allowed to apply physical force on a
person, no government, no lawyer, no military, nobody except a policemen.

They represent the enforcement power of the government and only they.
Policemen are 'Beamte'. Don't know, how to translate that.
That is the Prussian idea of organizing the state with 'Pflichten'
(duties of an office'), that are codified in laws. An official is sworn
in to fulfil these duties and respect the constitution and so forth.
After that, he is bound to these duties - and not to orders of the
superiors. Those have duties themselves.


- possibly are used to track down the suspected criminal, and effect an
arrest
At that point the system uses prosecutors and judge to process the
alleged criminal and "bring justice" more or less..
Now the police may be tasked to keep the "public peace"
But in reality there are NOT enough police around to prevent crime or
stop crime in progress.
IN actual fact, most police are not even very good at solving crime.
As a matter of fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the thesis that
more police will result in less crime
Usually more police results in a "police state" which history has shown
is NOT a good thing...


The American system is that of orders, that a person has to obey and
only these. That is more or less a pyramid of orders. In such a system
it is essential, to have control over the top position - otherwise the
entire body of officials could march in unwanted directions.
The American have no clear distinction between the branches of
policework, but a overlapping structure of rivalling 'agencies', like
ATF, FBI, county sheriffs and so forth. And the police is organised on
different levels of the USA, what leaves a confusing picture of a
hierarchy of polices.

In Germany the police belong to the constitutional obligations of the
'Länder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US.
The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the
'Länder'. The Eu has no police neither - for the same reason. Actually
they have some sort of policeforce, but that is highly restricted.

That is a very good way to organise policework, because government
cannot easily enforce anything, what is lawless, because the policemen
is not obliged to follow governmental orders (he belongs to the states)
and has his duties written down. Special orders are not among those
duties. Only specific persons can direct policemen, like judges, that
crime-police and so forth. And the specific status as 'Beamte' makes it
a crime to try to corrupt a policemen.

The entire system is, what gives Germany a peaceful appearance and
usually friendly policemen. But they have more than enough power, if
there is any sort of trouble, only you usually don't see it.

It is also efficient, because the police officers do a (moderately)
successful job and even the 'bad' districts, like e.g. Berlin-Wedding
(where I live) are quiet and relatively peaceful



That these personal does, what it should, you have laws, that tell
these employees, what to do (and what not).


Again with the nice theory that has NOTHING to do with the real world

Well, maybe Germans are different. But we HAVE laws, that tell
policemen, what to do. (You Americans should try that out...)

These laws are figured out by the government, what in some respect
belongs to the personal, too, hence should make just and useful laws
(and nothing else).


More nice theories not connected to the real world
Not to mention the notion that government is MAYBE the servant of the
people.

Yes I know, we are all slaves...
But to whom?

That has been shown NOT to be the case in European countries, over and
over again...
As a matter of fact, European governments have proven themselves
repeatedly to consider themselves the Masters and NOT the servants of
the people..


That term 'European' is like 'Asian'. Did you know, we have still
countries here.
In Asia there would be a HUGE distinction between e.g. India and Japan.

In Europe we have different kind of people even within a single nation.
Even Germany is more a mixture of various tribes (none called 'Germans').

So 'Europeans' is a bit too unspecific. Most probably you fall into such
a category, too, since most Americans have their roots in a European
country.
You should better refer to the European nations like Uk, Spain, France
or Russia.
...

If you don't believe, you may read this (or type 'REX 84' into google)
FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ps3sep04.htm#1


BIIIIIG SIGH
The so-called FEMA concentration camps are just another conspiracy theory.
And you'll be happy to find more of that ignorant **** all over the web

Well, these camps are nothing to beautify the states. A lot of ideas
could come into ones mind, especially in Germany, where we get usually
allergic reactions upon certain subjects.

But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this is true.
What would be, according to you, the BEST DEFENSE against such
government abuse ?
A defenseless population that is easily picked up and loaded into the
railroad cars ?

Actually THAT WAS what the Nazis did.

Or an armed population that is apt to shoot back at the government thugs
coming to load them in the railroad cars ?
And remember that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about
80 million "households" with a total of about 100 million households in
the US.
There are not even close to 5 millions police and soldiers in the US

My suggestion: ask these five million soldiers, if they would defend
their people (in times of trouble) and release those, that wouldn't.

How do you think 80 million ARMED people would respond to a few million
government thugs wanting to abrogate their rights ??
And don't forget that of all the people in the police and military, A
VERY LARGE NUMBER are conservatives who:
believe in the Constitution and what it represents
BELIEVE that they have a duty to their Oath of Service, which in part
states that they swear to defend the Constitution from enemies within
and without the United States.
Note that their oath is NOT to uphold the government
Their oath is to "PROTECT the Constitution from enemies both domestic
and foreign"

Do you believe that in their minds, a government wanting to abrogate the
rights of the people they swore to protect would not qualify as an enemy
of the Constitution ?

As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread.


Ironic how they were successful in Europe and not so successful in the US
Why do you think that is ?

What do you mean with: not successful?
Germany was destroyed and the USA not. But beware, thats what they want
to change...



Hint: Americans have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Mindset from Europeans which
makes it difficult for such statists to do what they like to do.


I hope..

Greetings

Thomas