Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

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

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...

On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...
No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the
people...'.
These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That
seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany.

TH


Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way
they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom
is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen
away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting
our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the
white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ...


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?

Don't confuse being "Happy with our form of Government" VS RELYING on a
Government/Police Force that can't ensure/insure our PERSONAL SAFETY.

Because they CAN not, HAVE not, WILL not, AND ARE not obligated to do so.

Police are merely "a thing" you call AFTER a crime is committed, or is
taking place.

Normal people are allowed to defend themselves AS IT TAKES PLACE!

Therefore, I LOVE my "form of Government" that allows me as a citizen,
to protect my life, my wifes life, our childrens and neighbors and other
others lives, so that that "we" can live on, work, and pay silly taxes. :)

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

dave wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:40:06 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:


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

TH


Bears and coyotes mainly. Sometimes puma come down from the hills.


Or... if you live in Detroit, or Trenton, NJ!

And again, I never had a "need" for a gun, so far.
I just "want" them in case.

For instance, NOBODY said you MUST have fire extinguishers or smoke
detectors in certain dwellings.

Sure glad I had plenty of both in '95 when our dryer decided to go
ballistic due to a faulty electrical malfunction INSIDE the dryer.

Took 20 minutes for the Fire Dept to show up after we called 911, and
the FD was only 3/4 miles away!

And I already killed the power, and put the fire out!

In all fairness, the FD did provide me with some really cool Oxygen when
they eventually showed up.

Never had that bottled stuff before!

I suggested that they add something "minty".

Liberal democracy
 

On Oct 5, 7:29*am, dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:17:40 -0500, J R wrote:
America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a democratic REPUBLIC.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+Republic+Dave
+Daubenmire

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=TopShrink says democrats and
liberals are CLINICALLY INSANE!

Top Shrink, Lyle Harold Rossiter,Jr in Saint Charles,Illinois is RIGHT.
cuhulin

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a
constitutional republic, such as the United States, France, Germany,
Italy, or India, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United
Kingdom, Spain, or Japan. It may have a presidential system (the United
States, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina), a semi-presidential system (France,
Russia, Poland, Ukraine), or a parliamentary system (the United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India).-wikipedia

-WOW- M4* Mania Dave 'A "Liberal" Democracy' !

* Mucho Medical-Marijuana Madness [M4]

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...nd+ Bear+Arms

Second Admendment.
Firearms, Shootin Irons.

Go to U.K.and what will you see? The 'imprints' of Firearms used as
rebar (steel reinforcement for concrete) in concrete sidewalks and
concrete walls of buildings.Go see for yourself.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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).

If that isn't what happens, but the government tries to threaten the own
population, than we have a lawless situation, where government and its
personal only pretends to work for the people, that pay for them.

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

As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread.

Btw- the word concentration camp is badly 'germanized' in
"Konzentrationslager" (from the original English roots), because the
German language uses a different linguistic picture, that is more like
the English word 'to collect' for 'sammeln'. In German you would say
"Sammellager" (English: Concentration camp), but not
"Konzentrationslager", because in German to concentrate
("konzentrieren") means to think hard.

So these camps are an Anglo-Saxion speciality and first invented by
Cecil Rhodes.

Anyhow..
Size and location of these camps are a hint, that the intended inmates
are Americans, what I regard as a hint for a not generally trustful
government.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

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.

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.

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 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)

If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.

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.

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.

To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have). This is
why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the civil
armament.


TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"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.

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.

Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates among
the leading nations.

And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer.

So clearly trying to keep people from having arms, doesn't necessarily mean
crimes won't occur.

The true measure isn't by how much people have had their arms removed, but
whether they chose not to engage in crime whether they have arms or not.

It isn't the arms that cause crime, but the will to do so. Removing arms,
doesn't alter the will. One can ALWAYS find a way if they decide crime is
what they desire.


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.

I agree they should be able to trust these organization, but that doesn't
mean they shouldn't be able to provide for themselves should this trust be
misplaced, or simply the organizations can't be everywhere 24/7/365.

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)

Actually only ONE of those criteria is really relevant. Moral. Everything
else is conditions that overcome ones morals.

So the issue is with these things, these are the causes of crime....so why
are you wasting time trying to control one means of instrumentality rather
than deal with the causes?



If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.

Hate to tell you this, but if you have a lot a psychopaths running around
things are going to get dangerous whether guns are legal or not.

See, they can always gets guns illegally, or they may simply turn to another
means, such as bombs, traps, poison, and so on.

The whys that one can commit a violent crime is limited only by one's
imagination....not whether they can legally buy a gun.


This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public.

They try to do so, however, since their concern is for the general public,
that means that individuals are often, well, on their own.

This general public in return controls the police - to keep the policemen
within the bounds of the law.

And yet regularly we find policemen who are outside the bounds of the law.

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.

Yep, but if they are going to do so, whether they legally have guns, or not
isn't going to significantly alter their ability to carry out their troubles
on others, Either with an illegal firearms, or simply some other means.

To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have).

Neither does the UK.

This is why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the
civil armament.

Sorry, but civil law isn't the issue. Every crime is already illegal.
Reforming the laws isn't going to change this. Until you can eliminate the
causes of crime, why should one provide for their own defense just in cause
the military or police fail to do so when needed as needed? If people are
armed when there is no crime, then who cares? As long as they aren't
engaging in crime, then what difference does it make if they chose to be
armed or not?

In short, I think you're spending too much time on the instrumentality and
trying to control it, and no enough realizing that people will break the law
when they chose to do so. Address why they chose to do so, and you can
eliminate most crime. However you can never eliminate all crime because some
people chose to commit crime only because they want to, and no other reason.
"They just want to watch the world burn. " Because it gives them something
that they simply can't have in any legal society.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"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...

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"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
- usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT
- 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...




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



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.

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..


If that isn't what happens, but the government tries to threaten the own
population, than we have a lawless situation, where government and its
personal only pretends to work for the people, that pay for them.


sigh

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

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 ?
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

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 ?

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



Btw- the word concentration camp is badly 'germanized' in
"Konzentrationslager" (from the original English roots), because the
German language uses a different linguistic picture, that is more like the
English word 'to collect' for 'sammeln'. In German you would say
"Sammellager" (English: Concentration camp), but not
"Konzentrationslager", because in German to concentrate ("konzentrieren")
means to think hard.

So these camps are an Anglo-Saxon specialty and first invented by
Cecil Rhodes.

Anyhow..
Size and location of these camps are a hint, that the intended inmates are
Americans, what I regard as a hint for a not generally trustful
government.


Who cares
The so-called "FEMA camps" are conspiracy nut nonsense.
Read this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/4312850

And the only people who are apt to end up in it, are unarmed and trustful
sheeple like you
Americans are neither unarmed, nor do they blindly trust their
government.


Thomas,
I hope I haven't been too harsh with you
But, I've been on these groups for a long time
It is so so frustrating to come across people who are so deeply ignorant of
history both theirs and that of the US, and of the relationship between
gun-control and people-control throughout history
Americans learned this lesson 200+ years ago and have worked hard not to
forget it
Europeans, with the possible exception of the Swiss, have not leaned this
lesson very well and seem to be doing everything in their power to forget
it. (And sadly the Swiss seem to be going down that path as well).

You do not come across as one of the regular trolls that come through these
groups to push the lies and distortions so commonly used by the gun-control
crowd.
You do come across as some who is curious, not very well informed, and maybe
willing to look at things from a different viewpoint.
IF you are truly interested in the subject and are willing to spend some
time reading up on this subject, you will find a whole slew of people who
will be happy to point to interesting material. They will also give you a
fair hearing if they believe you are NOT pushing an agenda