|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9ejg58Fmr8U1
@mid.individual.net: Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? TH Another illiterate moron sticks his head up and announces himself. Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776 -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger wrote in
: Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith: On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true. I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes. The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit, but it dies ... A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth, intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ... Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say. (If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.) I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could be necessary? I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves against the own government. Are you insane? You are German and you can't imagine why someone might not care for thier government? Did they teach you about Uncle Adolph in school, boy. Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the governed. When the government becomes harmful to the governed it must go. How messy that will be depends on how much the government resists. Normally and election or an indictment solve the problem. Other times it does not. Also, your forebears would be very dissapointed in you using a pistol against an armored vehicle. In fact many times less than bright people have made the argument that it's not realistic to fight an armored vehicle with a pistol. Well, no ****. Who do you think is stupid enough to deploy a platoon of pistol armed militia against a platoon of tanks? Tanks require fuel, water, ammo and spare parts. They require people to operate them and they require food, water, clothing and various amenities to survive. If you can interdict them before it gets to the tank, why you remove all the advantages of the thick armored shell. And while I get that you won't understand this, in our country the givernment will find that the troops will not neccessarily make war on the civilians. Their oath is to the Constitution and ultimately to the People, not to some transient tramp in the White House. -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...gst+Themselves
Also at, http://www.libertypost.org The Ulsterman Report,,,,,, Like a guy in Russia once told me in 1999 or 2000, The More Is The Better! cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. LOL Too bad you only know of the title and haven't' actually read it. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. Really ? Do tell.. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. Maybe you should read up on ALL those governments that have proven deadly for their populations Here's a good place to start.. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? See above.... They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? See above Note, you sure spew a lot of words to demonstrate crass and abyssal ignorance.. Are you a graduate student in the arts or alleged sciences ? |
A god book on US Civics 101.... Was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... Thomas Heger wrote in news:9ejg58Fmr8U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? TH Another illiterate moron sticks his head up and announces himself. Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776 Excellent response, but it ignores more recent misbehavior and abuse by governments Just look at all the murder and mayhem committed by governments on their own people in the last 100 years But to change the subject and the subject line.... I am looking for a good and readable intro to US Civics for a friend who is going to become a US citizen. He wants more than just to pass the test - which he's already fully qualified to do He wants more in depth analysis and commentary In a way, I wish that Isaac Asimov had written a book on this comparable to his Guide to the Bible.. it would have been a hell of a read... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 8:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith: On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true. I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes. The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit, but it dies ... A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth, intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ... Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say. (If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.) I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could be necessary? I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves against the own government. You Germans are supposed to be excellent engineers, no one there can make a flame thrower big enough to incinerate vehicles? IUD's to take them off the road? Devices to roast pigs in a Kevlar vest? I agree, those fancy tanks and SWAT vehicles would need to be taken out quickly and put 'em on their feet. A section of drilling pipe, with a simple explosive charge and big cast lead slug should make it though those bullet proof windows, etc. Some cleverly twisted pieces of tool steel metal tossed out in front of the tank tracks should be able to wind up in them and slow/stop them. My gawd man, the American forefathers, the "terrorists" in iraq and iran, afghanistan, etc. can come up some great ideas, are fine German engineers to be outdone? It will be the helicopters which will take a bit of thought and experimenting ... But, peaceful revolution first, then anyway possible ... and don't forget waiting, getting the leaders into vulnerable positions, isolated from the main group, stealth, cunning, poisons, etc. Remember the earth pits of vietnam with sharpened bamboo spikes which had been urinated on -- scared the bejesus up and was an excellent psychological weapon, and effective too ... snares to snap a mans neck .... where there is a will, there is ALWAYS a way ... it is VERY DIFFICULT to take any nation where the citizens have a will and weapons. They must break the peoples will or it is a no-go. The real danger is in government programs to mentally enslave the populations, get them used to be unquestioning slaves, brainwashed, feminized males, etc. Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 9:01 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
Thomas wrote in : Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith: On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote: "Thomas wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true. I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes. The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit, but it dies ... A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth, intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ... Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say. (If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.) I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could be necessary? I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves against the own government. Are you insane? You are German and you can't imagine why someone might not care for thier government? Did they teach you about Uncle Adolph in school, boy. Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the governed. When the government becomes harmful to the governed it must go. How messy that will be depends on how much the government resists. Normally and election or an indictment solve the problem. Other times it does not. Also, your forebears would be very dissapointed in you using a pistol against an armored vehicle. In fact many times less than bright people have made the argument that it's not realistic to fight an armored vehicle with a pistol. Well, no ****. Who do you think is stupid enough to deploy a platoon of pistol armed militia against a platoon of tanks? Tanks require fuel, water, ammo and spare parts. They require people to operate them and they require food, water, clothing and various amenities to survive. If you can interdict them before it gets to the tank, why you remove all the advantages of the thick armored shell. And while I get that you won't understand this, in our country the givernment will find that the troops will not neccessarily make war on the civilians. Their oath is to the Constitution and ultimately to the People, not to some transient tramp in the White House. In America, government and our government employees are servants of the people, whenever they forget this, it is the responsibility, placed on us by our Constitution and the forefathers and those who died to give us our rights to correct this criminal government -- and to use whatever means are necessary ... it may be different for you. Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith: On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true. I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes. The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit, but it dies ... A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth, intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ... Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say. (If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.) Again the silly argument that you citizens in the US would be facing soldiers with handguns.. I'll remind you that the Barrett .50 BMG was designed for CIVILIAN use and then adopted by the military and other government agencies. I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could be necessary? Then you need to study up on the history of government abuse and murder (democide) of their own people. Just in the 20th Century, such governments have killed of more than 140,000,000 people Just read up on Germany in the 20th Century as a prime candidate of such abuse It would take a blind person to not understand that people need to defend themselves from their own abusive governments. I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves against the own government. Why don't you analyse why the people in Hungary revolted against their "masters" in 1956 ? Why don't you read up on the people who risked their lives to escape from East Germany ? Your lack of understanding is based on abyssal ignorance of the abuses that governments perpetrate against their own people.. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "BDK" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate. Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot. Dozens of better guns out there. Depends on what you're after. On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to target. effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes to pull the trigger twice. A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot. That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty air. It contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber. Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get 4 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=533166 and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759 and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357. A 12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00. Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are staggered. In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the available space. Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close ranges. Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and than another 5 trigger pulls. Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge. Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge? Both seem to contain the same number of pellets in 000. The difference is in the powder charge, apparently. One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5. Not per wiki. The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion, accepts up to a 3" .410 shell. Hence the 5 pellets discussed. Perhaps of 00.......but the heavy load mentioned was 000. Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck (0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make them. :-) That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do. Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high 1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting the target multiple times in 1 shot. Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck. Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the target multiple times. :-) Same with two trigger pulls on an SP-101. However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of consequence unless you're talking the head. Both at close range would be effective to center mass....the edge going to the .410. You need to fire both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in an SP-101. Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to the number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3" shell. Again, not per wiki on the .410 shotshell. Anyway, I have three SP-101s (as you can tell, I hate them), two in .357 and one in .327Federal. The latter holds six rounds. So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty again, your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed downrange to match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's trigger. :-) Not going to argue with you. You can see what wiki says as well as I can. Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best one shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock wave in the blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay down, only that they are going to drop on the first shot and stay down for a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since they tend to dump a large part of their energy to a broad section of the body inducing such a hydrostatic shock. This, of course, depends upon a reasonably direct impact to center mass. So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on. This is true. My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which IMO makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's flat which again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a revolver. True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the S&W. Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all the variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently arbitrary dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for self defense, and challenging each of his talking points to establish that. Dudu tends to run off half cocked over anything you say or suggest so I don't pay much attention to him on those points. What got me going was mention of the SP-101. It is one of the things he and I agree on. It is an excellent gun. About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy issue, but at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be particularly accurate hence my noting it as pretty much a moot point. Fair enough. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN.... ...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in news:j60bln
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote in : On 9/27/2011 7:59 PM, Harry Callahan wrote: John wrote in : .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that ya pansy. 6.5" M-29 in a vertical shoulder holster. Extra speed loaders on your belt. LOL!!! Or, an old school Thompson in a violin case! Regards, JS Tried that.....the damn bow and rosin keep getting in the way. Well, if you took out the violin you wouldn't need those things either. Damn....after all these years, someone finally tells me the answer. ;( -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN.... ...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in news:j60gjn
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:30:19 -0400, "Scout" wrote: wrote in message om... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, Which you get from one round of .410 triple aught buck (3" shell) I can get 5 shots on target. And reload in about 2 seconds. Get, the .410 can do the same thing in about 50ms, and do it again 50ms later. If one still has control of it after the first BANG!!! Hence the weight we were discussing earlier. Perhaps on that particular one. Many derringers are quite light hence more vicious recoil. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN.... ...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... Honestly, after several years of looking at derringers and some of the absurd calibers they come in, I find it hard to fault the choice of any lightweight J frame. The more serious calibers are often as wide and nearly as long and always weigh more. Mine hides very well and while reloading isn't really an issue at close range (IMO) reloading a derringer can be a PITA. I bought some Speed Strips and I can carry the J-Frame and 2 Speed strips very comfortably. I really only would carry it if the 908 or G-19 was impractical for some reason, though. I followed the same pattern as you, with one additional step I moved to the Colt Agent and Cobra snubbies. They offer one more round than the S&W J-frames for the same weight. I also find their triggers much better (very personal taste) |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 8:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? TH In America, the citizens are the government, of course we would not fight against a majority consensus of our citizens, the government ... You have this confused with the relatively small group of criminal public servants, from the president on down, who are attempting to usurp the peoples powers and become "our leaders", this is simply out of the question. They are now engaged in wholesale criminal behaviors and actions without respect for the Constitution, it takes time to put down such widespread and powerful criminals. If you owned a company, would you let the employees become criminal and take over the company? The answer is NO! Indeed, it is "HELL NO!" They, the criminals in government, simply need the prison cells which they are entitled to and replace them with proper public servants ... however, they may not be willing to go peacefully ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 8:51 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
Thomas wrote in news:9ejg58Fmr8U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? TH Another illiterate moron sticks his head up and announces himself. Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776 Those words have never been more important than this very day ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 8:14 AM, J R wrote:
DOJ Says No Guns For Medical Marijuana Patents http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=314024 Marijuana = Mary Jane.Mary Jane, do juana? cuhulin Well, I may not care for daves whacko politics as he tokes on his bong, but I see no problem in his owning/possessing/using a firearm for protection ... indeed, everyone who has never committed a crime using a firearm should be required to own one and keep it in good working order, and have completed a course in high school on its' proper operation and safe carry and use ... Regards, JS |
(OT) : DOJ Says 'NO' Guns For Medical Marijuana Patents
On 9/29/2011 11:25 AM, RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:14 am, (J R) wrote: - DOJ Says No Guns For Medical Marijuana Patents - http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=314024 - - Marijuana = Mary Jane.Mary Jane, do juana? - cuhulin Hey - Someone should tell M4* Mania Dave to turn-in all his Handguns -cause- Smoking Dope and Packing Heat Don't Mix ! -hash-oil-&-gun-oil-a-deadly-mixture- * Mucho Medical-Marijuana Madness [M4] . . Firearms are regulated by the Treasury, not DOJ. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in news:j6182n : "Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "BDK" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate. Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot. Dozens of better guns out there. Depends on what you're after. On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to target. effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes to pull the trigger twice. A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot. That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty air. It contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber. Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get 4 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=533166 and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759 and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357. A 12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00. Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are staggered. In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the available space. Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close ranges. Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and than another 5 trigger pulls. Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge. Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge? One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5. The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion, accepts up to a 3" .410 shell. Hence the 5 pellets discussed. Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck (0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make them. :-) That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do. Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high 1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting the target multiple times in 1 shot. Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck. Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the target multiple times. :-) However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of consequence unless you're talking the head. You need to fire both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in an SP-101. Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to the number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3" shell. So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty again, your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed downrange to match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's trigger. :-) Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best one shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock wave in the blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay down, only that they are going to drop on the first shot and stay down for a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since they tend to dump a large part of their energy to a broad section of the body inducing such a hydrostatic shock. This, of course, depends upon a reasonably direct impact to center mass. So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on. This is true. My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which IMO makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's flat which again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a revolver. True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the S&W. Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all the variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently arbitrary dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for self defense, and challenging each of his talking points to establish that. About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy issue, but at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be particularly accurate hence my noting it as pretty much a moot point. Honestly, after several years of looking at derringers and some of the absurd calibers they come in, I find it hard to fault the choice of any lightweight J frame. The more serious calibers are often as wide and nearly as long and always weigh more. Mine hides very well and while reloading isn't really an issue at close range (IMO) reloading a derringer can be a PITA. I bought some Speed Strips and I can carry the J-Frame and 2 Speed strips very comfortably. I really only would carry it if the 908 or G-19 was impractical for some reason, though. Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't mean a derringer in .410 is the automatically bad choice Dudu tried to assert. You have your preferences, I have mine, Dudu has his, and John has his. But a .410 is a proven performer. Undoubtedly, I have merely stated my preference. Dogmatism amongst gun owners is amusing and frequently annoying. Especially when paired with innaccurate information. 8) Which I think is the point I'm trying to make. We all have preferences, and just because John has one preference and Dudu another, doesn't justify his assertion that this derringer isn't suitable. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I take it then you're not a student of history? I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? I accept this as confirmation you know next to nothing about history. They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith: On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true. I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes. The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit, but it dies ... A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth, intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ... Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say. (If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.) Depends on how you fight them. Apparently you seem to feel the only way to fight against armored vehicles are on their terms. I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could be necessary? Lessons from history. I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves against the own government. I take it then your knowledge of your own country's history starts around 1950? |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 9/29/2011 8:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith: On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true. I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes. The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit, but it dies ... A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth, intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ... Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say. (If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.) I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could be necessary? I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves against the own government. You Germans are supposed to be excellent engineers, no one there can make a flame thrower big enough to incinerate vehicles? IUD's to take them off the road? Devices to roast pigs in a Kevlar vest? I agree, those fancy tanks and SWAT vehicles would need to be taken out quickly and put 'em on their feet. A section of drilling pipe, with a simple explosive charge and big cast lead slug should make it though those bullet proof windows, etc. Some cleverly twisted pieces of tool steel metal tossed out in front of the tank tracks should be able to wind up in them and slow/stop them. My gawd man, the American forefathers, the "terrorists" in iraq and iran, afghanistan, etc. can come up some great ideas, are fine German engineers to be outdone? It will be the helicopters which will take a bit of thought and experimenting ... V-cong. Plant a number of thin pools around potential LZs wire grenades to the poles and run lines between the poles. When the down draft starts wiping the poles around, it pulls the pin, *bang*, one damaged or downed helo. I think something like the bird traps which use projectiles to fire a net over an area, but do the same thing with light wire hooked into heavier gauge stuff. Once the rotor pulls in enough around the rotor head....well that's the end of that helo. But, peaceful revolution first, then anyway possible ... and don't forget waiting, getting the leaders into vulnerable positions, isolated from the main group, stealth, cunning, poisons, etc. Remember the earth pits of vietnam with sharpened bamboo spikes which had been urinated on -- scared the bejesus up and was an excellent psychological weapon, and effective too ... snares to snap a mans neck ... where there is a will, there is ALWAYS a way ... it is VERY DIFFICULT to take any nation where the citizens have a will and weapons. They must break the peoples will or it is a no-go. The real danger is in government programs to mentally enslave the populations, get them used to be unquestioning slaves, brainwashed, feminized males, etc. Regards, JS |
A god book on US Civics 101.... Was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:58:29 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
wrote: But to change the subject and the subject line.... I am looking for a good and readable intro to US Civics for a friend who is going to become a US citizen. He wants more than just to pass the test - which he's already fully qualified to do He wants more in depth analysis and commentary In a way, I wish that Isaac Asimov had written a book on this comparable to his Guide to the Bible.. it would have been a hell of a read... Democracy In America by De Tocqueville. Should be required reading by most USAmericans. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Sep 29, 2:05*pm, Gray Guest wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9ejucrFg8tU1 @mid.individual.net: Am 29.09.2011 18:16, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. LOL Too bad you only know of the title and haven't' actually read it. Actually I've not read it, but listened to it as audio-book - in English btw, what is a second language for me. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. Really ? Do tell.. Really! The difference is cooperation and organisation. A single person cannot know, what *other people do, only guess. The uncertainty makes it much harder for an individual to defend himself than a multitude of organised individuals. This means, that individuals should find trustful friends. In modern times people are too often separated and have not many trusted relations. To overcome this, I kind of 'invented' a concept, I call 'tribes': imagine 'Indians', but young, modern, western people, equipped with computers and other electronic means, that mimic Indians to some extend (wear a feather or alike). Would that include scalping and slow cooking an enemies haed over a low hot fire while they are still alive. .. Note, you sure spew a lot of words to demonstrate crass and abyssal ignorance.. Are you a graduate student in the arts or alleged sciences ? Actually I live in Germany and am an engineer. American society is something I have not too much knowledge, but certain developments really frighten me. There are these FEMA camps for example or military grade weapons in private hands or in that of policemen. A lot of other things I really don't like, but usually the people and have quite a few friends from the US. TH Okay, first of all the FEMA camps are the product of diseased imaginations. 2nd if it were true why wouldn't we want to arm ourselves to prevent us being cast into concentration camps. As to military grade hardware in the hands of civilians? Tough ****. We as a people are grown up enough to decide our own fate, needs and wants. If I want to own something it's my business so long as I do no harm to another.. Now the police having them, I don't much care for that. But your cops have military grade weapons don't they. Ever hear of GSG-9. What is military grade anyway? -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. The Minutemen and the Redcoats where equally Armed {Balance-of-Power} -so- Why Should That Change Today : The Power of the People Should Equal or Exceed the Power of the Government. -insures-the-government-serves-the-people- -not-the-government-enslaves-the-people- |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "BDK" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate. Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot. Dozens of better guns out there. Depends on what you're after. On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to target. effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes to pull the trigger twice. A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot. That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty air. It contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber. Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get 4 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=533166 and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759 and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357. A 12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00. Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are staggered. In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the available space. Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close ranges. Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and than another 5 trigger pulls. Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge. Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge? Both seem to contain the same number of pellets in 000. The difference is in the powder charge, apparently. Check the links given. You can get 5 pellets in a 3" shell, and 4 in a 2.5" shell. One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5. Not per wiki. Midway sells them. Maybe wiki is wrong? There, corrected it for you. 2.5" shell holds 4, not 3 per http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=533166 The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion, accepts up to a 3" .410 shell. Hence the 5 pellets discussed. Perhaps of 00.......but the heavy load mentioned was 000. Yep, and as cited above in a 3" shell even according to wiki it's 5 pellets of 000 Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck (0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make them. :-) That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do. Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high 1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting the target multiple times in 1 shot. Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck. Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the target multiple times. :-) Same with two trigger pulls on an SP-101. Yea, but 2 trigger pulls take longer than 1. However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of consequence unless you're talking the head. Both at close range would be effective to center mass....the edge going to the .410. Simply my point, the .410 derringer isn't automatically unsuitable as Dudu asserted. You need to fire both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in an SP-101. Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to the number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3" shell. Again, not per wiki on the .410 shotshell. Anyway, I have three SP-101s (as you can tell, I hate them), two in .357 and one in .327Federal. The latter holds six rounds. True, but Dudu cited the .38/.357 Again, my comments weren't intended to address all the possible combinations, only to challenge Dudu's immediate dismissal of the derringer and the assertion that the SP101 would be drastically better for self defense. So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty again, your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed downrange to match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's trigger. :-) Not going to argue with you. You can see what wiki says as well as I can. Yep, and in this case it was wrong. Which is why I provided the cites above for you. Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best one shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock wave in the blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay down, only that they are going to drop on the first shot and stay down for a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since they tend to dump a large part of their energy to a broad section of the body inducing such a hydrostatic shock. This, of course, depends upon a reasonably direct impact to center mass. So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on. This is true. My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which IMO makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's flat which again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a revolver. True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the S&W. Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all the variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently arbitrary dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for self defense, and challenging each of his talking points to establish that. Dudu tends to run off half cocked over anything you say or suggest so I don't pay much attention to him on those points. What got me going was mention of the SP-101. It is one of the things he and I agree on. It is an excellent gun. It is, and I'm not challenging that. I'm simply challenging his dismissal of the derringer as something far worse. About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy issue, but at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be particularly accurate hence my noting it as pretty much a moot point. Fair enough. I thought so. :-) |
A god book on US Civics 101.... Was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message ... Democracy In America by De Tocqueville. Should be required reading by most USAmericans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've not personally read the book, but perhaps I'll find a copy. I do know that most in the US need a civics and history refresher course, since most really have no idea of either, aside from what they read on the internet, which is dubious at best, and outright untrue at worst. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in news:j60gjn : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:30:19 -0400, "Scout" wrote: wrote in message news:tlo487po2f32t9m9csq48fgkjnvbencbtk@4ax. com... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, Which you get from one round of .410 triple aught buck (3" shell) I can get 5 shots on target. And reload in about 2 seconds. Get, the .410 can do the same thing in about 50ms, and do it again 50ms later. If one still has control of it after the first BANG!!! Hence the weight we were discussing earlier. Perhaps on that particular one. Which is the only one I was discussing. :-) Many derringers are quite light hence more vicious recoil. Yep, however, it's really only vicious at the range, when you need it, you don't really notice the recoil nearly as much......only later when your hand starts to ache. |
A god book on US Civics 101.... Was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Brenda Ann" wrote in
: "Howard Brazee" wrote in message ... Democracy In America by De Tocqueville. Should be required reading by most USAmericans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- I've not personally read the book, but perhaps I'll find a copy. I do know that most in the US need a civics and history refresher course, since most really have no idea of either, aside from what they read on the internet, which is dubious at best, and outright untrue at worst. That or the revisionist crap that passes for an education these days. -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in
: "Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in news:j6182n : "Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "BDK" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate. Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot. Dozens of better guns out there. Depends on what you're after. On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to target. effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes to pull the trigger twice. A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot. That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty air. It contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber. Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get 4 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...ctNumber=53316 6 and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759 and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357. A 12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00. Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are staggered. In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the available space. Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close ranges. Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and than another 5 trigger pulls. Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge. Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge? One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5. The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion, accepts up to a 3" .410 shell. Hence the 5 pellets discussed. Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck (0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make them. :-) That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do. Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high 1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting the target multiple times in 1 shot. Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck. Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the target multiple times. :-) However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of consequence unless you're talking the head. You need to fire both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in an SP-101. Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to the number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3" shell. So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty again, your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed downrange to match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's trigger. :-) Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best one shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock wave in the blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay down, only that they are going to drop on the first shot and stay down for a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since they tend to dump a large part of their energy to a broad section of the body inducing such a hydrostatic shock. This, of course, depends upon a reasonably direct impact to center mass. So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on. This is true. My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which IMO makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's flat which again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a revolver. True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the S&W. Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all the variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently arbitrary dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for self defense, and challenging each of his talking points to establish that. About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy issue, but at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be particularly accurate hence my noting it as pretty much a moot point. Honestly, after several years of looking at derringers and some of the absurd calibers they come in, I find it hard to fault the choice of any lightweight J frame. The more serious calibers are often as wide and nearly as long and always weigh more. Mine hides very well and while reloading isn't really an issue at close range (IMO) reloading a derringer can be a PITA. I bought some Speed Strips and I can carry the J-Frame and 2 Speed strips very comfortably. I really only would carry it if the 908 or G-19 was impractical for some reason, though. Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't mean a derringer in .410 is the automatically bad choice Dudu tried to assert. You have your preferences, I have mine, Dudu has his, and John has his. But a .410 is a proven performer. Undoubtedly, I have merely stated my preference. Dogmatism amongst gun owners is amusing and frequently annoying. Especially when paired with innaccurate information. 8) Which I think is the point I'm trying to make. We all have preferences, and just because John has one preference and Dudu another, doesn't justify his assertion that this derringer isn't suitable. Well, would you truly expect Doodoo to be rational or even courteous about anything? -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in
: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I take it then you're not a student of history? I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? I accept this as confirmation you know next to nothing about history. They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? Considering what an education costs today, WTF are they teaching? A good case of malpractice and/or deceptive practices lurks here. -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
: To overcome this, I kind of 'invented' a concept, I call 'tribes': imagine 'Indians', but young, modern, western people, equipped with computers and other electronic means, that mimic Indians to some extend (wear a feather or alike). Actually, you are coming across as a pedantic idiot who seems to really solely on book knowledge... Didn't you mean "incorrect" book knowledge? -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in : "Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in news:j6182n : "Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "BDK" wrote in message . .. In article , says... On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith wrote: .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! http://bondarmsusa.com/ (make sure you watch the video!) Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses! Regards, JS **** that. This is a much better weapon. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate. Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot. Dozens of better guns out there. Depends on what you're after. On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to target. effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes to pull the trigger twice. A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot. That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty air. It contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber. Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get 4 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...ctNumber=53316 6 and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759 and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357. A 12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00. Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are staggered. In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the available space. Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close ranges. Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and than another 5 trigger pulls. Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge. Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge? One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5. The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion, accepts up to a 3" .410 shell. Hence the 5 pellets discussed. Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck (0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make them. :-) That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do. Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high 1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting the target multiple times in 1 shot. Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck. Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the target multiple times. :-) However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of consequence unless you're talking the head. You need to fire both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in an SP-101. Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to the number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3" shell. So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty again, your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed downrange to match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's trigger. :-) Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best one shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock wave in the blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay down, only that they are going to drop on the first shot and stay down for a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since they tend to dump a large part of their energy to a broad section of the body inducing such a hydrostatic shock. This, of course, depends upon a reasonably direct impact to center mass. So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on. This is true. My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which IMO makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's flat which again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a revolver. True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the S&W. Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all the variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently arbitrary dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for self defense, and challenging each of his talking points to establish that. About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy issue, but at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be particularly accurate hence my noting it as pretty much a moot point. Honestly, after several years of looking at derringers and some of the absurd calibers they come in, I find it hard to fault the choice of any lightweight J frame. The more serious calibers are often as wide and nearly as long and always weigh more. Mine hides very well and while reloading isn't really an issue at close range (IMO) reloading a derringer can be a PITA. I bought some Speed Strips and I can carry the J-Frame and 2 Speed strips very comfortably. I really only would carry it if the 908 or G-19 was impractical for some reason, though. Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't mean a derringer in .410 is the automatically bad choice Dudu tried to assert. You have your preferences, I have mine, Dudu has his, and John has his. But a .410 is a proven performer. Undoubtedly, I have merely stated my preference. Dogmatism amongst gun owners is amusing and frequently annoying. Especially when paired with innaccurate information. 8) Which I think is the point I'm trying to make. We all have preferences, and just because John has one preference and Dudu another, doesn't justify his assertion that this derringer isn't suitable. Well, would you truly expect Doodoo to be rational or even courteous about anything? A very valid point, I will grant you. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I take it then you're not a student of history? I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? I accept this as confirmation you know next to nothing about history. They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? Considering what an education costs today, WTF are they teaching? A good case of malpractice and/or deceptive practices lurks here. Yes, one can only wonder how a German manages to take history and miss the whole part about Hitler and what he did to various classes of German citizens (as well as citizens of other countries). |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in news:j63cdo
: "Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1 @mid.individual.net: Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest: Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1 @mid.individual.net: 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. To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known violence or extremistic political opinions. Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they are too boring for their sick brains. TH The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil, the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind. You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been avoided. Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large amounts of avoidable violence. The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite. But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the professionals are better off than you with a handgun. But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should not be done. Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted behaviour. Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of housing and food. Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow kids safe play in their neighbourhood. Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass. To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the smaller companies had to be protected. The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America. But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain. TH The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to defend themselves against the own government. I take it then you're not a student of history? I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their own people? I accept this as confirmation you know next to nothing about history. They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'. Or are there religious motives? Considering what an education costs today, WTF are they teaching? A good case of malpractice and/or deceptive practices lurks here. Yes, one can only wonder how a German manages to take history and miss the whole part about Hitler and what he did to various classes of German citizens (as well as citizens of other countries). Maybe he was asleep that day. Germans don't get to lecture anybody about people fearing government for at least 500 years. -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
A god book on US Civics 101.... Was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:58:29 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
wrote: [. . .] But to change the subject and the subject line.... I am looking for a good and readable intro to US Civics for a friend who is going to become a US citizen. He wants more than just to pass the test - which he's already fully qualified to do He wants more in depth analysis and commentary In a way, I wish that Isaac Asimov had written a book on this comparable to his Guide to the Bible.. it would have been a hell of a read... Democracy In America by De Tocqueville. de Tocqueville wrote his opus magnus almost 30 years before the Civil War; it is not a civics book but a commentary/critique of the American mind and culture at that time. It might be classed as sociology or anthropology, but not contemporary political science. Your friend needs a good book on the structure and mechanics of the American version of a republic within a democracy, as a late 19th century creed called it. I don't have one to offer; de Tocqueville would be an interesting read but it doesn't deal with topics like the effects of the Civil War, the additional amendments to the Constitution, the wars since 1835, the relationships among industrialization, massive immigration, the end of slavery and the subsequent civil rights legislation. -- Don Kirkman |
A god book on US Civics 101....
"Don Kirkman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:58:29 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest wrote: [. . .] But to change the subject and the subject line.... I am looking for a good and readable intro to US Civics for a friend who is going to become a US citizen. He wants more than just to pass the test - which he's already fully qualified to do He wants more in depth analysis and commentary In a way, I wish that Isaac Asimov had written a book on this comparable to his Guide to the Bible.. it would have been a hell of a read... Democracy In America by De Tocqueville. de Tocqueville wrote his opus magnus almost 30 years before the Civil War; it is not a civics book but a commentary/critique of the American mind and culture at that time. It might be classed as sociology or anthropology, but not contemporary political science. Your friend needs a good book on the structure and mechanics of the American version of a republic within a democracy, as a late 19th century creed called it. I don't have one to offer; de Tocqueville would be an interesting read but it doesn't deal with topics like the effects of the Civil War, the additional amendments to the Constitution, the wars since 1835, the relationships among industrialization, massive immigration, the end of slavery and the subsequent civil rights legislation. Good points I believe he's already read De Tocqueville (But clearly, I need to read him). So we need something more recent. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 44.100... "SaPeIsMa" wrote in : To overcome this, I kind of 'invented' a concept, I call 'tribes': imagine 'Indians', but young, modern, western people, equipped with computers and other electronic means, that mimic Indians to some extend (wear a feather or alike). Actually, you are coming across as a pedantic idiot who seems to really solely on book knowledge... Didn't you mean "incorrect" book knowledge? No I meant "rely" But "incorrect" also applies. |
A god book on US Civics 101....
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message .. . Good points I believe he's already read De Tocqueville (But clearly, I need to read him). So we need something more recent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kind of nice to see that there are at least some folks who admit they don't know everything, and are willing to learn. |
A god book on US Civics 101....
"SaPeIsMa"
"Don Kirkman" On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:58:29 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest [. . .] But to change the subject and the subject line.... I am looking for a good and readable intro to US Civics for a friend who is going to become a US citizen. He wants more than just to pass the test - which he's already fully qualified to do He wants more in depth analysis and commentary In a way, I wish that Isaac Asimov had written a book on this comparable to his Guide to the Bible.. it would have been a hell of a read... Democracy In America by De Tocqueville. de Tocqueville wrote his opus magnus almost 30 years before the Civil War; it is not a civics book but a commentary/critique of the American mind and culture at that time. It might be classed as sociology or anthropology, but not contemporary political science. Your friend needs a good book on the structure and mechanics of the American version of a republic within a democracy, as a late 19th century creed called it. I don't have one to offer; de Tocqueville would be an interesting read but it doesn't deal with topics like the effects of the Civil War, the additional amendments to the Constitution, the wars since 1835, the relationships among industrialization, massive immigration, the end of slavery and the subsequent civil rights legislation. Good points I believe he's already read De Tocqueville (But clearly, I need to read him). So we need something more recent. What GOOD Points? LIBs tolerate Debate only to the extent that you agree with them! http://mrctv.org/blog/liberals-try-r...ns-new-orleans Liberals Try to Remove Anti-Obama Signs in New Orleans They believe that they can fake reality just like they can fake the character of a man. LIBs. What PRICE their Vision? --- LIBs seek first to deprive you of your Virtue and THEN your very LIFE. DESERVE PEACE. DESERVE FREEDOM. DEMAND COMPETANCE. DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. DEFEAT LIB STRATEGIC INSANITY. IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 2:05 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
... Would that include scalping and slow cooking an enemies haed over a low hot fire while they are still alive. The Donnor party, when caught in the winter, had to consume human flesh .... the question isn't weather this would happen, just how hungry one would have to be, first ... Okay, first of all the FEMA camps are the product of diseased imaginations. 2nd if it were true why wouldn't we want to arm ourselves to prevent us being cast into concentration camps. The exact same thing were said about the german nazi death camps ... I was wondering what it would look like, when history repeats itself, using that theme ... As to military grade hardware in the hands of civilians? Tough ****. We as a people are grown up enough to decide our own fate, needs and wants. If I want to own something it's my business so long as I do no harm to another. Naa, my neighbor could do just too much damage, too quickly, with a nuke or even SAM missile ... I'd say, depends on the equipment, tanks and cannon, fully auto weapons, etc. ... no problem. Now the police having them, I don't much care for that. But your cops have military grade weapons don't they. Ever hear of GSG-9. What is military grade anyway? No, the mindset of the police is very bad and it is impossible to keep the bad apples out, before some are able to do some very bad things. Just like child molesters will always attempt to gravitate to being around children, and employment which allows such access ... the same is true with positions of authority. Control freaks will always seek these positions, people who like to abuse authority, like to punish and discipline, these people will seek these positions ... A strong citizens committee watch dogging any authority arm, group, branch of our government will always be a necessity ... if you town or city doesn't already have one, they need one(s.) The price of freedom and rights is constant vigilance ... but, fortunately, it can be done in a manner which is both interesting and enjoyable ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 9/29/2011 5:41 PM, RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:05 pm, Gray wrote: Thomas wrote in news:9ejucrFg8tU1 @mid.individual.net: Am 29.09.2011 18:16, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas wrote in message ... Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest: The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms. Has no one heard of Sun Tzu? 'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government. LOL Too bad you only know of the title and haven't' actually read it. Actually I've not read it, but listened to it as audio-book - in English btw, what is a second language for me. But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country. Really ? Do tell.. Really! The difference is cooperation and organisation. A single person cannot know, what other people do, only guess. The uncertainty makes it much harder for an individual to defend himself than a multitude of organised individuals. This means, that individuals should find trustful friends. In modern times people are too often separated and have not many trusted relations. To overcome this, I kind of 'invented' a concept, I call 'tribes': imagine 'Indians', but young, modern, western people, equipped with computers and other electronic means, that mimic Indians to some extend (wear a feather or alike). Would that include scalping and slow cooking an enemies haed over a low hot fire while they are still alive. .. Note, you sure spew a lot of words to demonstrate crass and abyssal ignorance.. Are you a graduate student in the arts or alleged sciences ? Actually I live in Germany and am an engineer. American society is something I have not too much knowledge, but certain developments really frighten me. There are these FEMA camps for example or military grade weapons in private hands or in that of policemen. A lot of other things I really don't like, but usually the people and have quite a few friends from the US. TH Okay, first of all the FEMA camps are the product of diseased imaginations. 2nd if it were true why wouldn't we want to arm ourselves to prevent us being cast into concentration camps. As to military grade hardware in the hands of civilians? Tough ****. We as a people are grown up enough to decide our own fate, needs and wants. If I want to own something it's my business so long as I do no harm to another. Now the police having them, I don't much care for that. But your cops have military grade weapons don't they. Ever hear of GSG-9. What is military grade anyway? -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. The Minutemen and the Redcoats where equally Armed {Balance-of-Power} -so- Why Should That Change Today : The Power of the People Should Equal or Exceed the Power of the Government. -insures-the-government-serves-the-people- -not-the-government-enslaves-the-people- . Just Say "No" To Obama-U-Nism© ! ~ RHF -©-big-government-control-&-oppression- . . Yes, the people are the real government here in America ... no one wants their government to be unarmed ... besides, I think the Constitution is very clear on those rights, to bear arms. The framers would have known it would take equal arms to put down an offending group of criminal public servants, if they ever attempted, or did, usurp the peoples powers. Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com