Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

One of those so-called FEMA concentration camps, in the DeSoto National
Forest in Mississippi, some local area people went to check it out.There
isn't a concentration camp there.

During World War Two era, there were Four German Prisoner Of War Camps
here in Mississippi.One of them was in Clinton,Mississippi, about five
miles West of doggy's couch.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+Mississ ippi

Those German POWs Liked it in Mississippi.They had it made in the shade
drinking orange kool aid.

Kool Aid, Kool Aid, can't wait, we want Kool Aid, taste great!
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Mize Attendant School (Mize,Missy Sippy) on Lockdown.A dude brought a
'pineapple', the kind of pineapple that has a pin on it, if you know
what I mean? to school for show and tell.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

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

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout:

...
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.


I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same
story. They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too
tough. It is a very lawless and violent society.
UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA.

How did that happen?

Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English
society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies,
with questionable objectives.

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


The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries
me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe.
Germany is different.

Greece has a lot of problems now and there are other countries with
large deficits.

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


I don't like the English way to control the people beyond every possible
means.

Actually that wasn't my point. If you think, you need a weapon to defend
yourself, than maybe thats a possible way.
I meant, that the police should provide security for the society and
carrying guns around isn't necessary.

To achieve this, crimes had to reduced (on average).

Who commits a crime? Well if you are frightened, hungry and alone, but
have arms, than this could lead to a crime.

All sorts of drugs are related to crimes, because the drugs allow an
income. That money is 'antisocial', because it feeds the criminals and
leaves wrecked bodies behind.

Greed of all sort is certainly a motivation for crimes. Sadism and
perversion is also related, as is violence.

These anti-social influences should be reduced, to allow a more peaceful
society to develop.

More unknown is, that dirt of various kind is also capable of making
people violent. So a 'clean' environment is good for the people. Its
more healthy, nicer, beautiful, if the neighbourhood isn't full of rubble.

It is really worth the afford to remove all rubble, overpaint graffiti,
fix broken windows and say 'hush hush' to the drug pushers. You can kind
of cure a neighbourhood this way, with moderate affords.

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.


Well, it depends on the arms if you end in the hospital or on the
graveyard - after a crime.

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 arms cause 'only' the wounds. But you are right and some investments
in metal health are also necessary.

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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).


I suggest NO SUCH THING
I state the EXACT OPPOSITE
Unless the police have efficient crystal balls to foresee the future,
they can ONLY show up AFTER THE FACT.




- 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)


Most uniformed police at the city or county and even State level primarily
perform patrol and first responder
duties. Then they have their investigative branch which is responsible for
building the case with the District attorneys.


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.


Total nonsense
You have the right to use force in defense of yourself and others, if and
when you consider yourself at risk of serious injury or death.
If you don't even have that, then you are the one living in a degenerate
society.


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.


That's pretty standard throughout the world
The problem has always been that every once in a while the police are turned
into a personal militia of either their own leaders or some political
leader. Or they are so suborned that they will not stand up and perform
their duties as per their oaths



- 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.


And where did you get this total nonsense from ??



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.


Actually, there are some very clear delineations
Granted that there is some overlap but the US is a big country, covering a
LOT of space.
So there is bound to be some overlap here and there
But most of the agencies have over time worked out compromises to deal with
them and even support each other when one is unable to do the job.



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.


So what agencies deal with cross-Länder issues ?
Who handles a criminal group that has roots in multiple Länders

The EU is a totally different matter
In the old days you had Interpol to handle issues that straddled national
borders
That's still true today.


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.


You're being naïve again
What makes you imagine that making something a crime would actually stop a
criminal from trying or actually doing that thing ??


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.


What makes you imagine that that is not the case in the MOST of the US ??


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


Well that's nice




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...)


What makes you even IMAGINE that that is not the case
Maybe you should stop making stupid and ignorant, not to mention
arrogantly self-congratulatory assumptions
You'll avoid looking fatuous.



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?


Mostly ignorance and a poor sense of where the real dangers are in the world


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').


And did you know that the EU is a (very ****-poor) copy of the United States
which just happens to originally be the union of 13 Sovereign States..


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.


I'm talking about the generic ignorance about the US, that is endemic ALL
ACROSS Europe, which you happen to demonstrate on a regular basis


..

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.

LOL
Americans built a country where the allergic reaction was built into the
national psyche. and which was STRONGLY re-inforced with the experiences of
what was discovered in Europe post WWII, and then reinforced again with the
Korean and Vietnam experiences .
It's why Americans tend to use the expression "Trust but Verify" when it
comes to their own governments at all levels



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.


Yes indeed
And yet THE ONLY Euro country that still believes in an armed population is
the best defense against government abuse are the Swiss who have been
believing that for 700+ years.
One has to wonder why the Germans haven't figured that one out. and like you
still happily spout how much they are willing t blindly trust their
government, even after the horrors of Germany under the Nazis..
Apparently you have neither learned the lesson, nor have you decided to
eliminate the chance of it ever happening again.


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.


I'm sure that the 6 million or so people, German and otherwise, had the same
attitude
And look what it got them..
Clearly you nor the rest of Europe learned ANYTHING from the horrors of WWII
And then you wonder why Americans tend to consider you fools and call
you sheeple.



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...


Indeed.
But today in the US, they are not called Nazis.
They call themselves "liberals", "progressives" and in many cases
"Democrats".





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


And to you...

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout:

..
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.


I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same story.
They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too tough. It is
a very lawless and violent society.

At the end of the 19th Century an Englishman could buy a gun in department
stores in London, no questions asked, not paperwork to fill
At the time, an Englishman was also expected to respond the the "Hue and
Cry" and assist in the capture of criminals.
Since then the Brits have been slowly disarmed on law at a time, to the
point that today, the National Olympic pistol team has to practice on
mainland Europe because they can NOT have the pistols in England.

And while they were slowly being disarmed and made defenseless, the crime
rate has steadily increased.

UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA.

How did that happen?

Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English
society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies,
with questionable objectives.


I'm not sure by what you mean with "the UK is extremely militaristic"
The British and a long history of military success acquired over 3+
centuries.
But British society cannot be considered "militaristic" by any sense of the
word
You may be using an incorrect term.



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


The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries
me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe.
Germany is different.


Oh please
Germany did an self-destruct in 1939-45
Before that it did another one in 1914-1918
And a few minors ones during ten intervening period.

And right now, MOST of Europe is doing a self-destruct of it's own, which
may pull Germany down with it, if the Germans don't stand up and refuse to
get dragged down by countries like Greece, Spain and the rest.
Frankly if all Germans are going around like you and patting yourselves on
the shoulder, while claiming to be "different", you haven't got a prayer in
Hell to survive this crisis..



Greece has a lot of problems now and there are other countries with large
deficits.


And if you're not careful, you will get dragged down with them...


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


I don't like the English way to control the people beyond every possible
means.


How is that different from the German way or actually the way of any of the
other countries in Europe ?


Actually that wasn't my point. If you think, you need a weapon to defend
yourself, than maybe thats a possible way.
I meant, that the police should provide security for the society and
carrying guns around isn't necessary.


Nice theory
BUT TOTAL BULL****
If you somehow imagine that you are immune from being the target of a random
criminal attack, because you just happen to be at the wrong place and time,
then you are a fool

To achieve this, crimes had to reduced (on average).


Well that's nice
But that has NOTHING to with an individual CHOOSING to be able to protect
himself, his family or even his neighbors.
It is NOT the police who are the FIRST line of defense against criminals
It's the CITIZENS
And if you're lucky, the police are not part of that criminal threat.


Who commits a crime? Well if you are frightened, hungry and alone, but
have arms, than this could lead to a crime.


Oh please !
Are you really this stump ignorant ?
What about the professional criminal ?


All sorts of drugs are related to crimes, because the drugs allow an
income. That money is 'antisocial', because it feeds the criminals and
leaves wrecked bodies behind.

Greed of all sort is certainly a motivation for crimes. Sadism and
perversion is also related, as is violence.

These anti-social influences should be reduced, to allow a more peaceful
society to develop.

More unknown is, that dirt of various kind is also capable of making
people violent. So a 'clean' environment is good for the people. Its more
healthy, nicer, beautiful, if the neighbourhood isn't full of rubble.


ROFLMAO

By that definition, the countryside where there is a LOT of dirt has got to
be the MOST CRIMINAL place of all




It is really worth the afford to remove all rubble, overpaint graffiti,
fix broken windows and say 'hush hush' to the drug pushers. You can kind
of cure a neighbourhood this way, with moderate affords.


"say "hush-hush" to the drug pushers" ?
PULEEEEEZE
Where do you get this kindergarten pap ?

I would rather shoot the drug pushers

You are caught trying to sell drugs ?
Here's a nice 9mm bullet to the back of the head
Problem solved,
The pusher is "hushed"..
PERMANENTLY..




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.


Well, it depends on the arms if you end in the hospital or on the
graveyard - after a crime.


IN the US, there are annually about 1,500,000 crimes committed using guns
ON the other hand there are about 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) where
armed citizens avoid being the victims of criminals
In the US, where there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about 80
million (out of 100 million) households, there are less than 900 accidental
deaths from guns.
Also in the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice as many criminals as
the police do.
Yet at the same time you are 6 times more at risk from being
accidentally shot by the police than an armed citizen.

I'll let you do the math...

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 arms cause 'only' the wounds. But you are right and some investments
in metal health are also necessary.


Well that's nice AFTER the criminal has been apprehended and sent off to the
hospital
But what is the target of that criminal supposed to do at the MOMENT of
the crime ??
You seem to be avoiding addressing that issue.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Germany has started printing old currency in case the Euro gets
ditched.I read about that a few days ago at
http://www.rense.com

Not long ago the Australians were disarmed.Result, crime skyrocketed.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in
:

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?

Are you an idiot? What makes you think I have a gun to defend myself
against my government? I don't.....I have a gun to defend myself and
family against street predators. So far......so good.


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

dave wrote in
m:

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.


Bears and pumas require bigger guns than a Seacamp .32.

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in
:


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

Not if the owner understands and practices firearms safety. A gun is no
more dangerous than a hatchet or chainsaw or a mower.

- and I don't
believe, that armed self-defence is the best of all possible ways to
deal with the problem of crime.

It isn't....but when it is the only way available......

If there are so many agencies, police officers, FBI, ATF, FEMA,
homeland-security, ..., why shouldn't they do something useful.

They do, but running around personally protecting everyone in our country
isn't one of them.

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.

In some cases, that would be true in both our countries.

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

TH




--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....