Thomas Heger wrote in
:

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.

If some of those honest citizens were armed would they continue to be
"helpless victims"?

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.

Or a sense of entitlement by certain groups.

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.

Same in the US in 99.99% of the places.

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?

Probably a multitude of things adding up. Each one, by itself, rather
innocuous.

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.

Many governments also get it wrong. I assume you would not wish to live
in Haiti, for example,......or Somalia.

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.

That is true.

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.

Our society does not require it either. We have millions of people who
go through their lives everyday and don't go near guns. We have others,
like myself, who feel that guns are a last resort, but still wish to have
that option.

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.

That would be the case IF the police were always where they needed to be
and had the onus to protect every citizen. However, they aren't and they
don't. Their obligation is to society in general.


--
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.....

Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas 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.

(maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow.)

But think about drugs, for example.

A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a
bit relaxed, woozy or alike.

Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get
money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it
harder, to gain something from selling drugs.

This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution
or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade.

The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people
should start new drug experiences. Than those, that remain addictive
could be provided with the drugs in a kind of medical situation for free.

This would stop the market and leave no way to profit from addiction.

A more happy and healthy society is not so easily keen on taking drugs,
because they have nicer things in mind than getting a kick.

So make people happier and healthier. Drugs only pretend to do that, but
- in fact - don't, but create a mental and personal disaster.

This all is reason for immense costs, the general public has to cover.
There are policemen to be paid and prisons, lawyers and hospitals. All
this is expensive and has no greater good than a few woozy heads.


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.

Actually I like to shoot myself, but have only an air-pistol. German
laws are a bit strict and you can't easily get a gun. So I could think
about the problem only from the theoretical point of view.

I think, the best way is to reduce violence in general. Criminals like
to create places of their own taste. These place they like to decorate
with graffiti and rubble (my impression), what scares usual citizens away.

To scare the criminals away, it is in my eyes useful, to spot such
places and clean them.
I mean real physical cleaning! That allows usual people to go there
again and this reduces the territory for the 'bad guys'.

This scheme is also in some way applicable on certain districts, where
people live. The removed rubble attracts less criminal minds, what can
'cure' such areas.

If people carry a gun, than this would require a spotless reputation and
enough training, to know about the risks. That also would require proper
registration and occasional control of firearms. Actually I think, it is
very dangerous, to have a gun with you outside the home. I think, the
risk is higher than the benefit, but I can't tell.


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.

No, I'm no policemen and (German) military we didn't have in West-Berlin.

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.

Well, agreed.
Actually this is the usenet and I type my ideas into such a forum
(alt.conspiracy btw). But occasionally I find different subjects
interesting. And then these post are crossposted to other forums, where
people participating having the impression of somebody without proper
knowledge.
To some extend this is true, but maybe you find ,what I have written,
interesting enough to think about it.

TH

RD Sandman wrote:

dave wrote in news:qZWdnUF-
:


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.


Yes, I just said that......or to be correct, I cited Herb Shriner saying
that.

You need to practice under

"typical" conditions. I've never accidentally shot anything.


Nor have I. All my shots (except one) have been intentional. That one
was an AD but didn't hit anything but sky.

Is the Sky OK?

In the Sky? What goes up in the Sky must come down.
You know how you see people shootin them Shootin Irons up in the Sky?
Those Bullets don't just vaporize into nothing.A lot of people have been
hit by falling Bullets.Chicken Little was Right!

One time when I was up on top of my house I found a 38 Calibre Bullet
half way buried in the top of my roof up there.

Foghorn J. Leghorn,,,, Now boy, I say boy, I just know you aren't going
to drop that bowling ball down on me!
cuhulin

On 10/5/2011 6:43 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"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.



Yes, any "American Royalty" should be served up to the poor, the hungry,
the starving in No. Korea ... shame to waste good food by just throwing
it in the trash ...

Regards,
JS

On 10/5/2011 9:40 AM, 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?

TH

Gawd ... the BIG guns are when you get together with your local militia
and go hunting ... the small guns are when you catch the vermin by
themselves ... actually, guns are like golf clubs, you need a LOT more
than just one.

Regards,
JS

On 10/6/2011 2:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
Thomas wrote in
:

Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"John 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.



You are going to need more ... more guns ...

Regards,
JS

On 10/6/2011 2:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
... ..I have a gun to defend myself and
family against street predators. So far......so good.
...

Well, the Constitution guarantees you the right to own a gun\weapons for
protections against the government ... but, I think most rational men
would extend that to including what your use is.

Regards,
JS

Paul Newton wrote in
:

RD Sandman wrote:

dave wrote in news:qZWdnUF-
:


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.


Yes, I just said that......or to be correct, I cited Herb Shriner
saying that.

You need to practice under

"typical" conditions. I've never accidentally shot anything.


Nor have I. All my shots (except one) have been intentional. That
one was an AD but didn't hit anything but sky.

Is the Sky OK?


It appears to have recovered.

--
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.....

On 10/5/2011 9:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your
arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you
silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?

If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.

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

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

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

TH

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

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

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

Regards,
JS