On 10/5/2011 9:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
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?

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.

Actually arms are dangerous - even for the owner - and I don't believe,
that armed self-defence is the best of all possible ways to deal with
the problem of crime.

If there are so many agencies, police officers, FBI, ATF, FEMA,
homeland-security, ..., why shouldn't they do something useful.
The problem I see, that these agencies are not really trusted, but seem
to be the former criminals, now with official status and better weapons.

If that is the case, than your country is really f****.

TH

When I go fishing with the nephews/son, we go way up in the high sierra,
to remote locations. There are wolfs, bears, mountain-men types (not
generally dangerous, but then caution and all that), etc. and marijuana
growers, etc. -- and probably dangers I have not really considered.

Now, I do carry a cell phone, but even if I call a cop on cell phone
(and the phone has service), and he jumps in a helicopter immediately, I
will probably already have taken care of the problem when he gets there
-- in other words, the necessity of investigating my murder will, most
likely, if I am successful, be totally unnecessary ...

.... but hey, some WILL NEED their help ... posthumously, most likely ...

Regards,
JS