RadioBanter - Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - Small gun, the serious protection you need ... (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/173753-small-gun-serious-protection-you-need.html)

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

Thomas Heger wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1
@mid.individual.net:

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.

I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. That
is not a call for troops.

Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather.

Some crimes are. One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting
involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the
other way around.

It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if
they run around with arms.

YOu have no idea what a degenerated society is so I wouldn't go around
spouting about one. People in the US do not believe that they can only
survive if they run around armed. In fact, only a small percentage of
honest citizens do. I am one of them. I don't expect my gun to do
anything to lower crime in my country. I only expect it to be available
if and when I may need it.

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.

Yes, but they aren't always there......I doubt very much you are in among
police and military in your country either.

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)

True.......and that is about 98 or 99% of the country.

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

There are a few.....mostly in gangs..

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.

They do......but they also don't have the onus of providing personal
security for every individual. That is also true your country.

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.

Big difference between carrying out your troubles with a firearm and
having just in case you run into one of those trying to carry out his
troubles with a gun or a bomb.

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

Based on your posting, you have very little idea of what US laws cover
and what laws we have or don't have.

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

Anbd this is why most won't listen to you. You try to address problems,
you obviously, don't understand.

--
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 ...

On Oct 6, 10:47*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
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
'Lï¿½nder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US.
The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the
'Lï¿½nder'. 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...-Camps3sep04.h....

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

1 ...so... In Germany the Police are 'There' to
Defend you before the Crime {Assault/Injury/Death}
Takes Place and therefore NO Crime Happens.
-there-is-no-right-of-self-defence-in-germany-

2 ...or... In Germany the Police are 'There' to
Defend "You" As the Crime {Assault/Injury/Death}
Is Happening and therefore the Crime is Prevented.
-there-is-no-right-of-self-defence-in-germany-

3 ...oops... In Germany the Police do not show-up
to Defend "You"; and only 'Appear' After the Crime
{Assault/Injury/Death} Is Reported and "You" are
laying on the floor Injured -a/o- Dead ; or on the
way to the Hospital of Morgue . . .
-there-is-no-right-of-self-defence-in-germany-

4 ...reality... In the USA the Police do not show-up
to Defend "You"; and only 'Appear' After the Crime
{Assault/Injury/Death} Is Reported and "You" are
laying on the floor Injured a/o Dead; or on the
way to the Hospital of Morgue . . .
=There=Is=A=Right=of=Self=Defense=In=The-USA=

The Base Universal Human Right of 'Self-Defense'
Is An All American Constitutional Right - Amen ~ RHF

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

Am 07.10.2011 10:51, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 6, 10:47 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 06.10.2011 15:59, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

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

"Thomas 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
'Lï¿½nder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US.
The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the
'Lï¿½nder'. 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.

Ah Yes... 'Peaceful' Germany and 'Good' Germans :
So then naturally the German Police carry NO Guns.
;;-}} - rotfl ~ RHF

I have written about a peaceful appearance of Germany - as general
impression.
I have not written about Germans and not about policemen.
(Actually I think the policemen are more or less the same everywhere. )

I have written about how the policework is organized and about the
rights and duties policemen have. These duties are codified in laws and
alike and written down. The policemen is 'Beamter', that is a special
kind of employee of the state, with special duties and rights. They
belong to this status for life and cannot easily be released - once they
are 'Beamter'.
But its difficult to get this status and has certain benefits like
relatively good pensions. So most policemen don't want to get fired
(what is possible, if they do something against their duties).

Your impression of sufficient armament is in fact true. I think police
has enough of what might be useful, but usually don't carry these things
around.

'Germans' is a misnomer itself. Its like 'Americans'. Most citizens of
the USA are not real Americans, but came from Europe, Africa or Asia.
Germany is a bit similar and kind of 'melting pot', only that event of
'mixture' happened much longer ago. So you don't have a 'Typical
German'. That is one of the usual mistakes of US citizens, but doesn't
refer to reality.
Typical US clichés about Germans are often about typical Bavarians in
reality. (Bavaria was separate a kingdom until 1871.)

But I would agree, that Germans on average are not very peaceful. But
Germany is, because the police is worrying about how to defeat the
criminals and not citizens with guns.

Policework seems less noisy here and policemen don't shoot often. (that
is in fact extremely rare, but sometimes happen)
Even this doesn't make it less efficient, but in contrary, they do a
relatively good job. The policemen might not be the best characters, but
they are limited through these duties and their specific status.

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

Am 07.10.2011 02:48, schrieb Scout:

"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.
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.

But at least it's not a degenerated society according to you.

After all who cares about the violence just as long as people aren't
carrying arms around with them.

Actually they have arms, only illegal. The citizens don't have, what
makes them helpless victims of armed kids, that deal with drugs.

Yesterday I visited a friend from Hull in northern England and we were
discussing the situation in the UK and compared that to Germany.
He said, you cannot walk around at night and cannot leave your car on
the street, because you would get beaten up and the car broken or stolen.

The English have also developed hooligans, speed-drinkers and a certain
kind of unmotivated violence.

This is next to disaster for a society and I fail to understand this
development. It's more like situations in Poland or Russia, shortly
after the collapse of communism.

Such a development is almost certainly a sign for something wrong in the
structure of the society.

We compared it with Germany and his words were, that I don't know what a
slum is and even the worst areas of Berlin are better, than were he came
from. E.g. here you can walk alone through a park after midnight, and
almost certainly get home safely. Cars are parking on the streets and
only occasionally one is burned down - what the papers or tv is reporting.

To plaster the cities with cameras doesn't seem to help. Now you have
pictures of the perpetrators. But want you want isn't more inmates in
prisons, but less violence on the streets.

So, what went wrong?
Actually I think, it's the responsibility of masons and the specific
English class system. The masons do something, besides religious
service, that I don't like. They have kind of strange habits, that are
not really beautiful, but almost.
Their behaviour is 'a near miss' - what looks kind of ugly to me - like
these stupid aprons and white gloves. That should somehow symbolize the
clothing of stonecutters (?) Well, to me it is wrong and my impression
is, they do things intentionally wrong. Not significant and not
important, but that adds up and could lead to such catastrophic
developments.
In government everything should be done the best way possible - what the
English clearly doesn't.

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.

Quite true, with all the blood Germany has on it's hands, it will be a
long time before they are in a position to claim they are superior to
other countries.

No one said that. Germans in general try be calm in this point. The 3rd
Reich is more like a disease, that Germany 'had' - and almost 'died'.
I'm certainly not proud about this episode of our history, but on the
other hand you cannot hold me responsible for that. Like killing the
Indians or the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were nothing, the Americans
should be proud about, but I wouldn't hold you responsible. Or the
unnecessary destruction of Dresden by the British was certainly a crime.
But we're not talking about that.

I will note that I gave you an example of a country that fulfills your
requirements of people not being able to carry around arms....and then
you tell us it's not working.

Seems your idea that you can obtain peace by controlling arms doesn't work.

This was not, what I wanted to say. I meant, that a generally more
peaceful society would not require to carry around guns. The aim should
be, that less crimes are committed in the first place and good, trustful
and well equipped policemen take care about the criminals - and not
armed citizens.

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:30:41 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

No one said that. Germans in general try be calm in this point. The 3rd
Reich is more like a disease, that Germany 'had' - and almost 'died'.
I'm certainly not proud about this episode of our history, but on the
other hand you cannot hold me responsible for that. Like killing the
Indians or the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were nothing, the Americans
should be proud about, but I wouldn't hold you responsible. Or the
unnecessary destruction of Dresden by the British was certainly a crime.
But we're not talking about that.

This was not, what I wanted to say. I meant, that a generally more
peaceful society would not require to carry around guns. The aim should
be, that less crimes are committed in the first place and good, trustful
and well equipped policemen take care about the criminals - and not
armed citizens.

TH

The Thousand Year Reich was an example to the world of what happens when
clever advertising men decide to whip a population into a war frenzy,
using all the tools of the mass media and motivational psychology. I am
sorry that it happened and I am more sorry that history tends to repeat
itself among ignorant populations.

Today's fascism lite, as practiced in America, has found the perfect
blend of fear and anger to sustain the corporatocracy and keep the people
from asking too many questions. The internet has just made it worse.

At least you have trustworthy competitive news media. We got nothing but
24/7 propaganda. Ignorance is strength.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:17:03 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:

If you are in the middle of a 3 day blinder, having a gun with you is
not really a good idea. It is like Herb Shriner once said, "They claim
that alcohol and gasoline don't mix. That isn't really true. They do
mix but they don't taste good together."

Alcohol and gasoline mix extremely well. You need to practice under
"typical" conditions. I've never accidentally shot anything.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+German+People

The only thing Good about Limeyland (England) is Mrs.Bucket.On PBS tee
vee tonight at 8:00 PM.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

Police and Sheriffs and the Irish Garda (I am More Irish than the Irish
themselves) really are a Brotherhood all over the World.Same for the
Firefighters too, and Farmers and Ranchers.The More we change, the More
we stay the Same.
http://www.contemplator.com/ireland/believe.html
cuhulin, the SHAMROCK

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...

Gasoline and Soap = Napalm.
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...