|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1
@mid.individual.net: Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and your fellow citizens. That is blatant nonsense! If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few problems, than to send in troops. I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. That is not a call for troops. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. Some crimes are. One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the other way around. It is a sign of a degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they run around with arms. YOu have no idea what a degenerated society is so I wouldn't go around spouting about one. People in the US do not believe that they can only survive if they run around armed. In fact, only a small percentage of honest citizens do. I am one of them. I don't expect my gun to do anything to lower crime in my country. I only expect it to be available if and when I may need it. The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why you have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in these organisations. Yes, but they aren't always there......I doubt very much you are in among police and military in your country either. So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If people in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy, employed, sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa) True.......and that is about 98 or 99% of the country. If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than things get dangerous. There are a few.....mostly in gangs.. This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general public. This general public in return controls the police - to keep the policemen within the bounds of the law. They do......but they also don't have the onus of providing personal security for every individual. That is also true your country. The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting range. But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out their troubles with firearms. Big difference between carrying out your troubles with a firearm and having just in case you run into one of those trying to carry out his troubles with a gun or a bomb. To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have). Based on your posting, you have very little idea of what US laws cover and what laws we have or don't have. This is why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the civil armament. Anbd this is why most won't listen to you. You try to address problems, you obviously, don't understand. -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 6, 10:47*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 06.10.2011 15:59, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa: Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for far longer than Americans have. Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what. OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for? I'm so sorry that you are so myopic You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions Who said that: 1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ? 2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ? 3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed with BIG guns ? - Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in large numbers 4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals - try criminals as an althernate threat 5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ? Ok I don't understand the US society! YES ! I agree you do not But thanks for admitting that much It's a good start If a country has a certain population and has a government and all sorts of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should somehow work for the country - and not against. Well that's nice.. But what does that have to do with anything ? A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach their kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no less. OK. And ? If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of justice to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted. BZZZT You seem to confused about the role of the police 1) The police do NOT "bring justice to a district"... Instead, the police - are part of the SYSTEM to enforce the laws of the district - usually show up AFTER a crime is committed I hope! but you seem to suggest, the policemen showed up before the crime was committed (and left after). - usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT In Germany we have a distinction between police and a sort of police for criminal investigation, called 'Kriminalpolizei'. (The ones, that collect evidence) Police has a specific monopoly (in Germany) and that is, what gives the police a special role. Nobody is allowed to apply physical force on a person, no government, no lawyer, no military, nobody except a policemen. They represent the enforcement power of the government and only they. Policemen are 'Beamte'. Don't know, how to translate that. That is the Prussian idea of organizing the state with 'Pflichten' (duties of an office'), that are codified in laws. An official is sworn in to fulfil these duties and respect the constitution and so forth. After that, he is bound to these duties - and not to orders of the superiors. Those have duties themselves. - possibly are used to track down the suspected criminal, and effect an arrest At that point the system uses prosecutors and judge to process the alleged criminal and "bring justice" more or less.. Now the police may be tasked to keep the "public peace" But in reality there are NOT enough police around to prevent crime or stop crime in progress. IN actual fact, most police are not even very good at solving crime. As a matter of fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the thesis that more police will result in less crime Usually more police results in a "police state" which history has shown is NOT a good thing... The American system is that of orders, that a person has to obey and only these. That is more or less a pyramid of orders. In such a system it is essential, to have control over the top position - otherwise the entire body of officials could march in unwanted directions. The American have no clear distinction between the branches of policework, but a overlapping structure of rivalling 'agencies', like ATF, FBI, county sheriffs and so forth. *And the police is organised on different levels of the USA, what leaves a confusing picture of a hierarchy of polices. In Germany the police belong to the constitutional obligations of the 'L�nder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US. The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the 'L�nder'. The Eu has no police neither - for the same reason. Actually they have some sort of policeforce, but that is highly restricted. That is a very good way to organise policework, because government cannot easily enforce anything, what is lawless, because the policemen is not obliged to follow governmental orders (he belongs to the states) and has his duties written down. Special orders are not among those duties. Only specific persons can direct policemen, like judges, that crime-police and so forth. And the specific status as 'Beamte' makes it a crime to try to corrupt a policemen. The entire system is, what gives Germany a peaceful appearance and usually friendly policemen. But they have more than enough power, if there is any sort of trouble, only you usually don't see it. It is also efficient, because the police officers do a (moderately) successful job *and even the 'bad' districts, like e.g. Berlin-Wedding (where I live) are quiet and relatively peaceful That these personal does, what it should, you have laws, that tell these employees, what to do (and what not). Again with the nice theory that has NOTHING to do with the real world Well, maybe Germans are different. But we HAVE laws, that tell policemen, what to do. (You Americans should try that out...) These laws are figured out by the government, what in some respect belongs to the personal, too, hence should make just and useful laws (and nothing else). More nice theories not connected to the real world Not to mention the notion that government is MAYBE the servant of the people. Yes I know, we are all slaves... But to whom? That has been shown NOT to be the case in European countries, over and over again... As a matter of fact, European governments have proven themselves repeatedly to consider themselves the Masters and NOT the servants of the people.. That term 'European' is like 'Asian'. Did you know, we have still countries here. In Asia there would be a HUGE distinction between e.g. India and Japan. In Europe we have different kind of people even within a single nation. Even Germany is more a mixture of various tribes (none called 'Germans'). So 'Europeans' is a bit too unspecific. Most probably you fall into such a category, too, since most Americans have their roots in a European country. You should better refer to the European nations like Uk, Spain, France or Russia. .. If you don't believe, you may read this (or type 'REX 84' into google) FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...-Camps3sep04.h.... BIIIIIG SIGH The so-called FEMA concentration camps are just another conspiracy theory. And you'll be happy to find more of that ignorant **** all over the web Well, these camps are nothing to beautify the states. A lot of ideas could come into ones mind, especially in Germany, where we get usually allergic reactions upon certain subjects. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this is true. What would be, according to you, the BEST DEFENSE against such government abuse ? A defenseless population that is easily picked up and loaded into the railroad cars ? Actually THAT WAS what the Nazis did. Or an armed population that is apt to shoot back at the government thugs coming to load them in the railroad cars ? And remember that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about 80 million "households" with a total of about 100 million households in the US. There are not even close to 5 millions police and soldiers in the US My suggestion: ask these five million soldiers, if they would defend their people (in times of trouble) and release those, that wouldn't. How do you think 80 million ARMED people would respond to a few million government thugs wanting to abrogate their rights ?? And don't forget that of all the people in the police and military, A VERY LARGE NUMBER are conservatives who: believe in the Constitution and what it represents BELIEVE that they have a duty to their Oath of Service, which in part states that they swear to defend the Constitution from enemies within and without the United States. Note that their oath is NOT to uphold the government Their oath is to "PROTECT the Constitution from enemies both domestic and foreign" Do you believe that in their minds, a government wanting to abrogate the rights of the people they swore to protect would not qualify as an enemy of the Constitution ? As I said, the Nazis are a dangerous bread. Ironic how they were successful in Europe and not so successful in the US Why do you think that is ? What do you mean with: not successful? Germany was destroyed and the USA not. But beware, thats what they want to change... Hint: Americans have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Mindset from Europeans which makes it difficult for such statists to do what they like to do. I hope.. Greetings Thomas 1 ...so... In Germany the Police are 'There' to Defend you before the Crime {Assault/Injury/Death} Takes Place and therefore NO Crime Happens. -there-is-no-right-of-self-defence-in-germany- 2 ...or... In Germany the Police are 'There' to Defend "You" As the Crime {Assault/Injury/Death} Is Happening and therefore the Crime is Prevented. -there-is-no-right-of-self-defence-in-germany- 3 ...oops... In Germany the Police do not show-up to Defend "You"; and only 'Appear' After the Crime {Assault/Injury/Death} Is Reported and "You" are laying on the floor Injured -a/o- Dead ; or on the way to the Hospital of Morgue . . . -there-is-no-right-of-self-defence-in-germany- 4 ...reality... In the USA the Police do not show-up to Defend "You"; and only 'Appear' After the Crime {Assault/Injury/Death} Is Reported and "You" are laying on the floor Injured a/o Dead; or on the way to the Hospital of Morgue . . . =There=Is=A=Right=of=Self=Defense=In=The-USA= The Base Universal Human Right of 'Self-Defense' Is An All American Constitutional Right - Amen ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 07.10.2011 10:51, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 6, 10:47 am, Thomas wrote: Am 06.10.2011 15:59, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas wrote in message ... Am 05.10.2011 22:22, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas wrote in message ... Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa: Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for far longer than Americans have. Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what. OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for? I'm so sorry that you are so myopic You are making a bunch of stupid presumptions Who said that: 1) "small guns" are for protection against the government ? 2) "small guns" are NOT useable for protection against the Government ? 3) the government is some "monolithic beast" that can only be addressed with BIG guns ? - Government agents are people who may come at you individually OR in large numbers 4) the government is the ONLY source of threat to individuals - try criminals as an althernate threat 5) The RKBA is only applicable to "small guns" ? Ok I don't understand the US society! YES ! I agree you do not But thanks for admitting that much It's a good start If a country has a certain population and has a government and all sorts of personal, than this personal, employed by the country, should somehow work for the country - and not against. Well that's nice.. But what does that have to do with anything ? A certain individual has a certain job in the large machine of the society - say a teacher. Than the people pay this person to teach their kids and that is what the person is supposed to do - no more, no less. OK. And ? If they employ a policemen, this person should bring some sort of justice to a district, because the criminals are prosecuted. BZZZT You seem to confused about the role of the police 1) The police do NOT "bring justice to a district"... Instead, the police - are part of the SYSTEM to enforce the laws of the district - usually show up AFTER a crime is committed I hope! but you seem to suggest, the policemen showed up before the crime was committed (and left after). - usually are used to gather evidence AFTER THE FACT In Germany we have a distinction between police and a sort of police for criminal investigation, called 'Kriminalpolizei'. (The ones, that collect evidence) Police has a specific monopoly (in Germany) and that is, what gives the police a special role. Nobody is allowed to apply physical force on a person, no government, no lawyer, no military, nobody except a policemen. They represent the enforcement power of the government and only they. Policemen are 'Beamte'. Don't know, how to translate that. That is the Prussian idea of organizing the state with 'Pflichten' (duties of an office'), that are codified in laws. An official is sworn in to fulfil these duties and respect the constitution and so forth. After that, he is bound to these duties - and not to orders of the superiors. Those have duties themselves. - possibly are used to track down the suspected criminal, and effect an arrest At that point the system uses prosecutors and judge to process the alleged criminal and "bring justice" more or less.. Now the police may be tasked to keep the "public peace" But in reality there are NOT enough police around to prevent crime or stop crime in progress. IN actual fact, most police are not even very good at solving crime. As a matter of fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the thesis that more police will result in less crime Usually more police results in a "police state" which history has shown is NOT a good thing... The American system is that of orders, that a person has to obey and only these. That is more or less a pyramid of orders. In such a system it is essential, to have control over the top position - otherwise the entire body of officials could march in unwanted directions. The American have no clear distinction between the branches of policework, but a overlapping structure of rivalling 'agencies', like ATF, FBI, county sheriffs and so forth. And the police is organised on different levels of the USA, what leaves a confusing picture of a hierarchy of polices. In Germany the police belong to the constitutional obligations of the 'L�nder' what is roughly the same as a state in the US. The government (or 'Bund') has no police, because police belongs to the 'L�nder'. The Eu has no police neither - for the same reason. Actually they have some sort of policeforce, but that is highly restricted. That is a very good way to organise policework, because government cannot easily enforce anything, what is lawless, because the policemen is not obliged to follow governmental orders (he belongs to the states) and has his duties written down. Special orders are not among those duties. Only specific persons can direct policemen, like judges, that crime-police and so forth. And the specific status as 'Beamte' makes it a crime to try to corrupt a policemen. - The entire system is, what gives Germany - a peaceful appearance and usually friendly - policemen. Ah Yes... 'Peaceful' Germany and 'Good' Germans : So then naturally the German Police carry NO Guns. ;;-}} - rotfl ~ RHF I have written about a peaceful appearance of Germany - as general impression. I have not written about Germans and not about policemen. (Actually I think the policemen are more or less the same everywhere. ) I have written about how the policework is organized and about the rights and duties policemen have. These duties are codified in laws and alike and written down. The policemen is 'Beamter', that is a special kind of employee of the state, with special duties and rights. They belong to this status for life and cannot easily be released - once they are 'Beamter'. But its difficult to get this status and has certain benefits like relatively good pensions. So most policemen don't want to get fired (what is possible, if they do something against their duties). Your impression of sufficient armament is in fact true. I think police has enough of what might be useful, but usually don't carry these things around. 'Germans' is a misnomer itself. Its like 'Americans'. Most citizens of the USA are not real Americans, but came from Europe, Africa or Asia. Germany is a bit similar and kind of 'melting pot', only that event of 'mixture' happened much longer ago. So you don't have a 'Typical German'. That is one of the usual mistakes of US citizens, but doesn't refer to reality. Typical US clichés about Germans are often about typical Bavarians in reality. (Bavaria was separate a kingdom until 1871.) But I would agree, that Germans on average are not very peaceful. But Germany is, because the police is worrying about how to defeat the criminals and not citizens with guns. Policework seems less noisy here and policemen don't shoot often. (that is in fact extremely rare, but sometimes happen) Even this doesn't make it less efficient, but in contrary, they do a relatively good job. The policemen might not be the best characters, but they are limited through these duties and their specific status. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 07.10.2011 02:48, schrieb Scout:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout: .. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they run around with arms. Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates among the leading nations. I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same story. They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too tough. It is a very lawless and violent society. UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA. How did that happen? Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies, with questionable objectives. But at least it's not a degenerated society according to you. After all who cares about the violence just as long as people aren't carrying arms around with them. Actually they have arms, only illegal. The citizens don't have, what makes them helpless victims of armed kids, that deal with drugs. Yesterday I visited a friend from Hull in northern England and we were discussing the situation in the UK and compared that to Germany. He said, you cannot walk around at night and cannot leave your car on the street, because you would get beaten up and the car broken or stolen. The English have also developed hooligans, speed-drinkers and a certain kind of unmotivated violence. This is next to disaster for a society and I fail to understand this development. It's more like situations in Poland or Russia, shortly after the collapse of communism. Such a development is almost certainly a sign for something wrong in the structure of the society. We compared it with Germany and his words were, that I don't know what a slum is and even the worst areas of Berlin are better, than were he came from. E.g. here you can walk alone through a park after midnight, and almost certainly get home safely. Cars are parking on the streets and only occasionally one is burned down - what the papers or tv is reporting. To plaster the cities with cameras doesn't seem to help. Now you have pictures of the perpetrators. But want you want isn't more inmates in prisons, but less violence on the streets. So, what went wrong? Actually I think, it's the responsibility of masons and the specific English class system. The masons do something, besides religious service, that I don't like. They have kind of strange habits, that are not really beautiful, but almost. Their behaviour is 'a near miss' - what looks kind of ugly to me - like these stupid aprons and white gloves. That should somehow symbolize the clothing of stonecutters (?) Well, to me it is wrong and my impression is, they do things intentionally wrong. Not significant and not important, but that adds up and could lead to such catastrophic developments. In government everything should be done the best way possible - what the English clearly doesn't. And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer. The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe. Germany is different. Quite true, with all the blood Germany has on it's hands, it will be a long time before they are in a position to claim they are superior to other countries. No one said that. Germans in general try be calm in this point. The 3rd Reich is more like a disease, that Germany 'had' - and almost 'died'. I'm certainly not proud about this episode of our history, but on the other hand you cannot hold me responsible for that. Like killing the Indians or the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were nothing, the Americans should be proud about, but I wouldn't hold you responsible. Or the unnecessary destruction of Dresden by the British was certainly a crime. But we're not talking about that. I will note that I gave you an example of a country that fulfills your requirements of people not being able to carry around arms....and then you tell us it's not working. Seems your idea that you can obtain peace by controlling arms doesn't work. This was not, what I wanted to say. I meant, that a generally more peaceful society would not require to carry around guns. The aim should be, that less crimes are committed in the first place and good, trustful and well equipped policemen take care about the criminals - and not armed citizens. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:30:41 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
No one said that. Germans in general try be calm in this point. The 3rd Reich is more like a disease, that Germany 'had' - and almost 'died'. I'm certainly not proud about this episode of our history, but on the other hand you cannot hold me responsible for that. Like killing the Indians or the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were nothing, the Americans should be proud about, but I wouldn't hold you responsible. Or the unnecessary destruction of Dresden by the British was certainly a crime. But we're not talking about that. This was not, what I wanted to say. I meant, that a generally more peaceful society would not require to carry around guns. The aim should be, that less crimes are committed in the first place and good, trustful and well equipped policemen take care about the criminals - and not armed citizens. TH The Thousand Year Reich was an example to the world of what happens when clever advertising men decide to whip a population into a war frenzy, using all the tools of the mass media and motivational psychology. I am sorry that it happened and I am more sorry that history tends to repeat itself among ignorant populations. Today's fascism lite, as practiced in America, has found the perfect blend of fear and anger to sustain the corporatocracy and keep the people from asking too many questions. The internet has just made it worse. At least you have trustworthy competitive news media. We got nothing but 24/7 propaganda. Ignorance is strength. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:17:03 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
If you are in the middle of a 3 day blinder, having a gun with you is not really a good idea. It is like Herb Shriner once said, "They claim that alcohol and gasoline don't mix. That isn't really true. They do mix but they don't taste good together." Alcohol and gasoline mix extremely well. You need to practice under "typical" conditions. I've never accidentally shot anything. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...+German+People
The only thing Good about Limeyland (England) is Mrs.Bucket.On PBS tee vee tonight at 8:00 PM. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Police and Sheriffs and the Irish Garda (I am More Irish than the Irish
themselves) really are a Brotherhood all over the World.Same for the Firefighters too, and Farmers and Ranchers.The More we change, the More we stay the Same. http://www.contemplator.com/ireland/believe.html cuhulin, the SHAMROCK |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Gasoline and Soap = Napalm.
cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger wrote in
: Am 07.10.2011 02:48, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout: .. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they run around with arms. Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates among the leading nations. I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same story. They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too tough. It is a very lawless and violent society. UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA. How did that happen? Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies, with questionable objectives. But at least it's not a degenerated society according to you. After all who cares about the violence just as long as people aren't carrying arms around with them. Actually they have arms, only illegal. The citizens don't have, what makes them helpless victims of armed kids, that deal with drugs. If some of those honest citizens were armed would they continue to be "helpless victims"? Yesterday I visited a friend from Hull in northern England and we were discussing the situation in the UK and compared that to Germany. He said, you cannot walk around at night and cannot leave your car on the street, because you would get beaten up and the car broken or stolen. The English have also developed hooligans, speed-drinkers and a certain kind of unmotivated violence. This is next to disaster for a society and I fail to understand this development. It's more like situations in Poland or Russia, shortly after the collapse of communism. Such a development is almost certainly a sign for something wrong in the structure of the society. Or a sense of entitlement by certain groups. We compared it with Germany and his words were, that I don't know what a slum is and even the worst areas of Berlin are better, than were he came from. E.g. here you can walk alone through a park after midnight, and almost certainly get home safely. Cars are parking on the streets and only occasionally one is burned down - what the papers or tv is reporting. Same in the US in 99.99% of the places. To plaster the cities with cameras doesn't seem to help. Now you have pictures of the perpetrators. But want you want isn't more inmates in prisons, but less violence on the streets. So, what went wrong? Probably a multitude of things adding up. Each one, by itself, rather innocuous. Actually I think, it's the responsibility of masons and the specific English class system. The masons do something, besides religious service, that I don't like. They have kind of strange habits, that are not really beautiful, but almost. Their behaviour is 'a near miss' - what looks kind of ugly to me - like these stupid aprons and white gloves. That should somehow symbolize the clothing of stonecutters (?) Well, to me it is wrong and my impression is, they do things intentionally wrong. Not significant and not important, but that adds up and could lead to such catastrophic developments. In government everything should be done the best way possible - what the English clearly doesn't. Many governments also get it wrong. I assume you would not wish to live in Haiti, for example,......or Somalia. And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer. The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe. Germany is different. Quite true, with all the blood Germany has on it's hands, it will be a long time before they are in a position to claim they are superior to other countries. No one said that. Germans in general try be calm in this point. The 3rd Reich is more like a disease, that Germany 'had' - and almost 'died'. I'm certainly not proud about this episode of our history, but on the other hand you cannot hold me responsible for that. That is true. Like killing the Indians or the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were nothing, the Americans should be proud about, but I wouldn't hold you responsible. Or the unnecessary destruction of Dresden by the British was certainly a crime. But we're not talking about that. I will note that I gave you an example of a country that fulfills your requirements of people not being able to carry around arms....and then you tell us it's not working. Seems your idea that you can obtain peace by controlling arms doesn't work. This was not, what I wanted to say. I meant, that a generally more peaceful society would not require to carry around guns. Our society does not require it either. We have millions of people who go through their lives everyday and don't go near guns. We have others, like myself, who feel that guns are a last resort, but still wish to have that option. The aim should be, that less crimes are committed in the first place and good, trustful and well equipped policemen take care about the criminals - and not armed citizens. That would be the case IF the police were always where they needed to be and had the onus to protect every citizen. However, they aren't and they don't. Their obligation is to society in general. -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1 @mid.individual.net: Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and your fellow citizens. That is blatant nonsense! If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few problems, than to send in troops. I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. That is not a call for troops. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. Some crimes are. One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the other way around. (maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow.) But think about drugs, for example. A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a bit relaxed, woozy or alike. Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it harder, to gain something from selling drugs. This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade. The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people should start new drug experiences. Than those, that remain addictive could be provided with the drugs in a kind of medical situation for free. This would stop the market and leave no way to profit from addiction. A more happy and healthy society is not so easily keen on taking drugs, because they have nicer things in mind than getting a kick. So make people happier and healthier. Drugs only pretend to do that, but - in fact - don't, but create a mental and personal disaster. This all is reason for immense costs, the general public has to cover. There are policemen to be paid and prisons, lawyers and hospitals. All this is expensive and has no greater good than a few woozy heads. It is a sign of a degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if they run around with arms. YOu have no idea what a degenerated society is so I wouldn't go around spouting about one. People in the US do not believe that they can only survive if they run around armed. In fact, only a small percentage of honest citizens do. I am one of them. I don't expect my gun to do anything to lower crime in my country. I only expect it to be available if and when I may need it. Actually I like to shoot myself, but have only an air-pistol. German laws are a bit strict and you can't easily get a gun. So I could think about the problem only from the theoretical point of view. I think, the best way is to reduce violence in general. Criminals like to create places of their own taste. These place they like to decorate with graffiti and rubble (my impression), what scares usual citizens away. To scare the criminals away, it is in my eyes useful, to spot such places and clean them. I mean real physical cleaning! That allows usual people to go there again and this reduces the territory for the 'bad guys'. This scheme is also in some way applicable on certain districts, where people live. The removed rubble attracts less criminal minds, what can 'cure' such areas. If people carry a gun, than this would require a spotless reputation and enough training, to know about the risks. That also would require proper registration and occasional control of firearms. Actually I think, it is very dangerous, to have a gun with you outside the home. I think, the risk is higher than the benefit, but I can't tell. The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why you have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in these organisations. Yes, but they aren't always there......I doubt very much you are in among police and military in your country either. No, I'm no policemen and (German) military we didn't have in West-Berlin. So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If people in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy, employed, sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa) True.......and that is about 98 or 99% of the country. If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than things get dangerous. There are a few.....mostly in gangs.. This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general public. This general public in return controls the police - to keep the policemen within the bounds of the law. They do......but they also don't have the onus of providing personal security for every individual. That is also true your country. The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting range. But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out their troubles with firearms. Big difference between carrying out your troubles with a firearm and having just in case you run into one of those trying to carry out his troubles with a gun or a bomb. To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have). Based on your posting, you have very little idea of what US laws cover and what laws we have or don't have. This is why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the civil armament. Anbd this is why most won't listen to you. You try to address problems, you obviously, don't understand. Well, agreed. Actually this is the usenet and I type my ideas into such a forum (alt.conspiracy btw). But occasionally I find different subjects interesting. And then these post are crossposted to other forums, where people participating having the impression of somebody without proper knowledge. To some extend this is true, but maybe you find ,what I have written, interesting enough to think about it. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
In the Sky? What goes up in the Sky must come down.
You know how you see people shootin them Shootin Irons up in the Sky? Those Bullets don't just vaporize into nothing.A lot of people have been hit by falling Bullets.Chicken Little was Right! One time when I was up on top of my house I found a 38 Calibre Bullet half way buried in the top of my roof up there. Foghorn J. Leghorn,,,, Now boy, I say boy, I just know you aren't going to drop that bowling ball down on me! cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/5/2011 6:43 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'. These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany. TH Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ... Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for far longer than Americans have. Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what. Yes, any "American Royalty" should be served up to the poor, the hungry, the starving in No. Korea ... shame to waste good food by just throwing it in the trash ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/5/2011 9:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'. These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany. TH Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ... Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for far longer than Americans have. Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what. OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for? TH Gawd ... the BIG guns are when you get together with your local militia and go hunting ... the small guns are when you catch the vermin by themselves ... actually, guns are like golf clubs, you need a LOT more than just one. Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/6/2011 2:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
Thomas wrote in : Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "John wrote in message ... On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'. These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany. TH Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ... Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for far longer than Americans have. Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what. OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for? Are you an idiot? What makes you think I have a gun to defend myself against my government? I don't.....I have a gun to defend myself and family against street predators. So far......so good. You are going to need more ... more guns ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/6/2011 2:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
... ..I have a gun to defend myself and family against street predators. So far......so good. ... Well, the Constitution guarantees you the right to own a gun\weapons for protections against the government ... but, I think most rational men would extend that to including what your use is. Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/5/2011 9:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith: .410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 .... good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could stop 'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you silenced! Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that such handguns would be the weapons of choice.) Better would be to prevent havoc. I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities, politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military and even entertainment. In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery, violence, sickness and dirt. If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!) environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food, walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around. That last one.. "..but don't carry a gun around.." is where you demonstrate you're not clued in. The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California. And the difference is a simple one. On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend themselves. I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with personal, that is supposed to provide security? If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too. In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the feeling, this fact would lower my state of security. Actually arms are dangerous - even for the owner - and I don't believe, that armed self-defence is the best of all possible ways to deal with the problem of crime. If there are so many agencies, police officers, FBI, ATF, FEMA, homeland-security, ..., why shouldn't they do something useful. The problem I see, that these agencies are not really trusted, but seem to be the former criminals, now with official status and better weapons. If that is the case, than your country is really f****. TH When I go fishing with the nephews/son, we go way up in the high sierra, to remote locations. There are wolfs, bears, mountain-men types (not generally dangerous, but then caution and all that), etc. and marijuana growers, etc. -- and probably dangers I have not really considered. Now, I do carry a cell phone, but even if I call a cop on cell phone (and the phone has service), and he jumps in a helicopter immediately, I will probably already have taken care of the problem when he gets there -- in other words, the necessity of investigating my murder will, most likely, if I am successful, be totally unnecessary ... .... but hey, some WILL NEED their help ... posthumously, most likely ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
John Smith wrote in :
On 10/6/2011 2:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote: Thomas wrote in : Am 05.10.2011 15:43, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "John wrote in message ... On 10/4/2011 7:30 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... No, I don't agree. In a democracy the government is 'We, the people...'. These governments should never be a thread to their own people. That seems to be an American speciality, that we don't have in Germany. TH Oh no, you are confused, the royalty of england had it just the way they liked it, before our forefathers pointed out what real freedom is, and insisted upon having it ... a thing which has been stolen away, in the last few decades, buy the would-be-royalty now inhabiting our public servant offices ... our gangsters, like the one in the white house, have their corresponding counterparts in your country ... Not to mention that the Euros have lived with that kind of "specialty" for far longer than Americans have. Which is why poor TH is so confused about who is what. OK. But if you are so happy with the government, what do you need these 'small guns, the serious protection you need ...' for? Are you an idiot? What makes you think I have a gun to defend myself against my government? I don't.....I have a gun to defend myself and family against street predators. So far......so good. You are going to need more ... more guns ... I already have more.....more guns.... -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
John Smith wrote in :
On 10/6/2011 2:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote: ... ..I have a gun to defend myself and family against street predators. So far......so good. ... Well, the Constitution guarantees you the right to own a gun\weapons for protections against the government ... The Constitution recognizes my right to keep and bear arms. It does not specify a reason to do it. but, I think most rational men would extend that to including what your use is. I wouldn't care if they did or not.....if they don't like why I carry, they can try to take the gun away from me. -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 8, 10:36*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman: Thomas *wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1 @mid.individual.net: Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and your fellow citizens. That is blatant nonsense! If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few problems, than to send in troops. I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. *That is not a call for troops. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. Some crimes are. *One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the other way around. (maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow..) But think about drugs, for example. A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a bit relaxed, woozy or alike. Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it harder, to gain something from selling drugs. This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade. The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people should start new drug experiences. - Than those, that remain addictive could - be provided with the drugs in a kind of - medical situation for free. TH, So then you would also Open 'RX' Bars and Administer Unlimited Quantities of Alcohol to Certified Habitual {Lifetime} Drunks and Repeat DUI Drivers*. * After Revoking their License to Drive and Impounding their Car/Truck. ? What About Free* Cigarettes & Cigars for All Who Can Not Quit Smoking ! * 'RX' Smoke Shops ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; plus pay for them to get high/loaded ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/8/2011 3:48 PM, John Smith wrote:
... ? What About Free* Cigarettes& Cigars for All Who Can Not Quit Smoking ! * 'RX' Smoke Shops ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; plus pay for them to get high/loaded ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF ... When I was in Miami, decades ago, bought some cuban tobacco plants and seeds. Every year I plant them in the garden and roll some killer cigars! Use some in pipes and even have a homemade razor blade "shredder" to get some fine enough for cigs. When I run out of homebrew stuff, and have to buy a pack of cigs or tobacco, I am bummed out, I grow a much superior product! Tobacco is all in the curing, and the "curing juice" you apply (usually a "secret" of tobacco growers/manufacturers ... Decades ago, the knowledge was hard to come across on how to properly grow and cure tobacco. Today, on the internet, you can obtain it for free. Basically, since I save seed to grow my own tobacco, my only cost is papers and cigarette tubes ... maybe 20 to 40 bucks a month for both the wife and me ... I love tobacco growing, it is a neat hobby to get into! The plants are enormous, except for leaf shape, the rows in the moonlight mimic rows of corn ... These days, I grow all my tobacco needs and keep two sisters in tobacco for homemade cigs. (They like to smoke factory made when they go out, so does the wife, they think roll-your-own is just too 'okie') -- I like it when people see me rolling cigs out of a light leather pouch and start asking me questions about it ... I always am attempting to encourage others to do the same -- grow their own and "get off the grid!" If I still drank, I'd homebrew my beer, if I smoked dope, I'd grow that too ... What we need is to legalize pot and have some classes in how to grow and process your own ... I don't want to pay for something for someone that they can do cheaply for themselves. If you can grow house plants and/or a garden, you should have no problem with weed ... after all, hemp is a common weed in some parts of the USA ... God gave marijuana to man, men didn't ... so they damn well have no right to take it away ... I mean get real, it is insane to try to make any plant illegal! Not that there is a shortage of insane people, we seem to have an abundant supply ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 8, 10:36 am, Thomas wrote: Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman: Thomas wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1 @mid.individual.net: Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and your fellow citizens. That is blatant nonsense! If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few problems, than to send in troops. I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. That is not a call for troops. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. Some crimes are. One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the other way around. (maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow.) But think about drugs, for example. A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a bit relaxed, woozy or alike. Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it harder, to gain something from selling drugs. This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade. The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people should start new drug experiences. - Than those, that remain addictive could - be provided with the drugs in a kind of - medical situation for free. TH, So then you would also Open 'RX' Bars and Administer Unlimited Quantities of Alcohol to Certified Habitual {Lifetime} Drunks and Repeat DUI Drivers*. * After Revoking their License to Drive and Impounding their Car/Truck. ? What About Free* Cigarettes& Cigars for All Who Can Not Quit Smoking ! * 'RX' Smoke Shops ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; plus pay for them to get high/loaded ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. So the single dose could be provided for very low costs - in case the government would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and in fact for free, because the objective of such activity is not, to help people to a woozy head, but to dry out the market for such substances. The Dutch way of selling pot in cafés is in my eyes silly and not really helpful. Mariuana is not as harmless as many people think. It is from my impression very psychoactive and could create severe mental problems. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
... Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. ... In areas of So. America, Coca Leaf is legal. I think the wife and I were on a train in Bolivia when we had our first cup of coca tea -- delightful stuff! As good or better than coffee, indeed a mix of coca leaf with coffee beans is an ideal pick-me-up! Coca tea should certainly be available here in the USA ... and, like pot, the government should keep their noses out of others business and what plants they consume ... if you are in public and endangering yourself or others, different story ... if you are committing a crime, different story, etc. It was an insane plan to ever attempt to outlaw God given plants. I don't know what insanity ever made it seem different, what thinking made us wish to punish people for using plants, etc. ... but someday we will have to return to sanity and tell the control freaks to mind their own business and quit locking up people for using plants and committing no other crime(s.) For one thing, we simply can't afford it, never could, really ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 8, 5:13*pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF: On Oct 8, 10:36 am, Thomas *wrote: Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman: Thomas * *wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1 @mid.individual.net: Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and your fellow citizens. That is blatant nonsense! If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few problems, than to send in troops. I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. *That is not a call for troops. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. Some crimes are. *One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the other way around. (maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow.) But think about drugs, for example. A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a bit relaxed, woozy or alike. Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it harder, to gain something from selling drugs. This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade. The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people should start new drug experiences. - Than those, that remain addictive could - be provided with the drugs in a kind of - medical situation for free. TH, So then you would also Open 'RX' Bars and Administer Unlimited Quantities of Alcohol to Certified Habitual {Lifetime} Drunks and Repeat DUI Drivers*. * After Revoking their License to Drive and Impounding their Car/Truck. ? What About Free* Cigarettes& *Cigars for All Who Can Not Quit Smoking ! * 'RX' Smoke Shops ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; plus pay for them to get high/loaded ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF * . Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. - So the single dose could be provided for - very low costs - in case the government - would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and - in fact for free, Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs & alcohol & tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Next week on Thursday at 5:30 AM on the TCM channel, Escape from East
Berlin movie.Doggy and I will be getting our beauty sleep at that time of the night/morning.I have seen that movie a few times before. Wedding, in North Western Berlin, there is a reconstructed section of the wall and a museum there. http://www.europe-cities.com/en/583/.../19053_wedding We gots 'The Red Baron' on the TCM channel right now, Flight Commander movie. Snoopy and the Red Baron. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 8, 5:13 pm, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF: Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. - So the single dose could be provided for - very low costs - in case the government - would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and - in fact for free, Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. If the addictive person gets his daily dose, the related crimes could be greatly reduced. This alone would be a justification. But there is more, since the income from drugs are often used to finance other unwanted activities. (All the third-world guerillas for example live more or less from drugs.) Anyhow: things like this will not happen, because positive effects for you are negative effects for other people, that are not really happy about loosing their income. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Have Gunnnnn, Will Travel, reads the carrrd of a mannnnn,,,,,, Paladin,
Paladin, where do you roammmmm?,,,,,,,,, three sheets in the wind, and back again,,,, Paladin, Paladin,,,,,,, cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 9, 9:31*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: On Oct 8, 5:13 pm, Thomas *wrote: Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF: Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. - So the single dose could be provided for - very low costs - in case the government - would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and - in fact for free, Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& *alcohol& *tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF * . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. So to "Dry-Out" the Alcohol Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! So to "Dry-Out" the Tobacco Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 10.10.2011 03:14, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 9, 9:31 am, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. So to "Dry-Out" the Alcohol Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You cannot do that, because alcohol is in the end a cheap chemical, that anybody could easily produce at home. Crack is different and the kind of addiction is. This is, what makes these substances so dangerous. Than crack is relatively expensive, hence of much greater interest for criminals, because the profit rate is enormously high. Only the business is very risky and one dealing with drugs could easily end up in a prison (or worse). To reduce the profit rate, the drug had to be cheaper, but less available. This could only be achieved, if the substances are handed out for free (or low price) in controlled situations. This would modify the 'terms of trade', because the real addictive people are then off the streets. Alcohol is more a health problem for the individual, than a great deal for the criminals. So alcoholism needs other means to to cure it. So to "Dry-Out" the Tobacco Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You insist on this 'for free', but I don't. Actually a moderate (low) price would have the same effect and would possibly look less dubious. Tobacco is a risk for the health, too, but to smoke is an individual decision and not such a problem for the society in general. The addictive people do a lot of illegal things, like breaking into homes, stealing cars, robbery and alike, to finance their addiction. So these drug dealer profit in the end from these crimes. The question for me was, how to reduce crime and not how to reduce the individual costs for 'kicks'. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. ... In areas of So. America, Coca Leaf is legal. I think the wife and I were on a train in Bolivia when we had our first cup of coca tea -- delightful stuff! As good or better than coffee, indeed a mix of coca leaf with coffee beans is an ideal pick-me-up! Coca tea should certainly be available here in the USA ... and, like pot, the government should keep their noses out of others business and what plants they consume ... if you are in public and endangering yourself or others, different story ... if you are committing a crime, different story, etc. It was an insane plan to ever attempt to outlaw God given plants. I don't know what insanity ever made it seem different, what thinking made us wish to punish people for using plants, etc. ... but someday we will have to return to sanity and tell the control freaks to mind their own business and quit locking up people for using plants and committing no other crime(s.) For one thing, we simply can't afford it, never could, really ... Regards, JS Some of the Marijuana Growers in the Northern California Sierra Foothills have also been trying to grow Coca Plants on Federal Lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca . Well, I definently don't like the "high" of marijuana, but coca is so much like coffee as a pick me up that I can see real value in it ... indeed, I believe coca-cola used to actually contain cocaine ... It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here, someones insomnia here, etc. The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine show man" selling his "tonics." Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/8/2011 7:18 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:13 pm, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF: On Oct 8, 10:36 am, Thomas wrote: Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman: Thomas wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1 @mid.individual.net: Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and your fellow citizens. That is blatant nonsense! If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few problems, than to send in troops. I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. That is not a call for troops. Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. Some crimes are. One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the other way around. (maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow.) But think about drugs, for example. A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a bit relaxed, woozy or alike. Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it harder, to gain something from selling drugs. This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade. The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people should start new drug experiences. - Than those, that remain addictive could - be provided with the drugs in a kind of - medical situation for free. TH, So then you would also Open 'RX' Bars and Administer Unlimited Quantities of Alcohol to Certified Habitual {Lifetime} Drunks and Repeat DUI Drivers*. * After Revoking their License to Drive and Impounding their Car/Truck. ? What About Free* Cigarettes& Cigars for All Who Can Not Quit Smoking ! * 'RX' Smoke Shops ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; plus pay for them to get high/loaded ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. - So the single dose could be provided for - very low costs - in case the government - would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and - in fact for free, Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . . because the objective of such activity is not, to help people to a woozy head, but to dry out the market for such substances. - The Dutch way of selling pot in cafés is - in my eyes silly and not really helpful. - Mariuana is not as harmless as many people - think. It is from my impression very - psychoactive and could create severe mental - problems. That It Can and M4* Mania Dave is a Prime Example of such 'severe mental problems'. -wrt- "It's probably a good idea to practice shooting whilst drunk, just in case you get attacked in the middle of a 3 day blinder." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...02ec634082c010 -illegal-drugs-and-guns-don't-mix-[.]- http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...aa7e962a15003d * Mucho** Medical-Marijuana Madness [.] ** Excessive Daily Long Term Use*** by Non-Terminal Medical [RX] Patients. *** -aka- Life-Long 'Habitual' Drug Addicts . . TH Well, I will agree with you, tobacco is very addictive, I really don't care, I don't want to quit. My doctor has already offered me various "therapy's", tranquilizers, etc. to quit smoking -- truth is, I don't want to quit ... but if and when I do, I won't even think twice about asking him for help ... my doctor is near 65, doesn't smoke and thinks the dangers of tobacco are greatly over-blown ... but, NOT TOTALLY WITHOUT RISK ... he always starts out, "The law requires me to tell you this ..." But, for right now, I am going to step out on the porch and blow off a great cigar ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/8/2011 7:31 PM, J R wrote:
Laura 'Dime Bag' Bush. What is East Berlin like nowadays? Do you ever go to clothing optional Englischer Park in Berlin? cuhulin Too slow for me ... I like to streak a nice Catholic Church ... wearing only my Batman Mask ... HEHEHEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/9/2011 9:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: On Oct 8, 5:13 pm, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF: Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. - So the single dose could be provided for - very low costs - in case the government - would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and - in fact for free, Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. If the addictive person gets his daily dose, the related crimes could be greatly reduced. This alone would be a justification. But there is more, since the income from drugs are often used to finance other unwanted activities. (All the third-world guerillas for example live more or less from drugs.) Anyhow: things like this will not happen, because positive effects for you are negative effects for other people, that are not really happy about loosing their income. TH Actually, untrue ... in countries where the drugs are "legal" you find lawyers, doctors, judges, bankers, etc. which die of old age and are addicted to such drugs as opiates ... The real danger is the high cost of drugs and the difficulty obtaining them, that is why people are murdered in holdups, home burglaries, etc. Give 'em the drugs and let them go crash in a flop house ... Pick up any newspaper, pay close attention to the specifics of most killings ... you will find that the majority revolve around the illegality of drugs and someone committing a crime to get the drugs ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/9/2011 10:15 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 03:14, schrieb RHF: On Oct 9, 9:31 am, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. So to "Dry-Out" the Alcohol Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You cannot do that, because alcohol is in the end a cheap chemical, that anybody could easily produce at home. Crack is different and the kind of addiction is. This is, what makes these substances so dangerous. Than crack is relatively expensive, hence of much greater interest for criminals, because the profit rate is enormously high. Only the business is very risky and one dealing with drugs could easily end up in a prison (or worse). To reduce the profit rate, the drug had to be cheaper, but less available. This could only be achieved, if the substances are handed out for free (or low price) in controlled situations. This would modify the 'terms of trade', because the real addictive people are then off the streets. Alcohol is more a health problem for the individual, than a great deal for the criminals. So alcoholism needs other means to to cure it. So to "Dry-Out" the Tobacco Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You insist on this 'for free', but I don't. Actually a moderate (low) price would have the same effect and would possibly look less dubious. Tobacco is a risk for the health, too, but to smoke is an individual decision and not such a problem for the society in general. The addictive people do a lot of illegal things, like breaking into homes, stealing cars, robbery and alike, to finance their addiction. So these drug dealer profit in the end from these crimes. The question for me was, how to reduce crime and not how to reduce the individual costs for 'kicks'. TH Crack, methamphetamine and highly refined cocaine have removed people from my life ... I believe that these drugs are highly dangerous. However, some people do seem to be able to use them for recreation with few dangerous repercussions, or even none at all ... some it kills quickly. The worst thing I have noticed about methamphetamine (or crack) is that people go crazy from lack of sleep, poor nutrition, etc. I would strongly caution people NOT to consume these drugs, as in most cases where friends or people I have known about have taken these drugs, to excess, it has killed them, left them in mental wards, destroyed their health, etc. Still, I would not have people punished for using these drugs -- they do enough harm to themselves, why would I want to abuse them further ... however, any crimes they commit should be prosecuted ... if people are going to commit suicide, and they can't get drugs to do it with, they will find another way ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/9/2011 10:15 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 10.10.2011 03:14, schrieb RHF: On Oct 9, 9:31 am, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. So to "Dry-Out" the Alcohol Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You cannot do that, because alcohol is in the end a cheap chemical, that anybody could easily produce at home. Crack is different and the kind of addiction is. This is, what makes these substances so dangerous. Than crack is relatively expensive, hence of much greater interest for criminals, because the profit rate is enormously high. Only the business is very risky and one dealing with drugs could easily end up in a prison (or worse). To reduce the profit rate, the drug had to be cheaper, but less available. This could only be achieved, if the substances are handed out for free (or low price) in controlled situations. This would modify the 'terms of trade', because the real addictive people are then off the streets. Alcohol is more a health problem for the individual, than a great deal for the criminals. So alcoholism needs other means to to cure it. So to "Dry-Out" the Tobacco Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You insist on this 'for free', but I don't. Actually a moderate (low) price would have the same effect and would possibly look less dubious. Tobacco is a risk for the health, too, but to smoke is an individual decision and not such a problem for the society in general. The addictive people do a lot of illegal things, like breaking into homes, stealing cars, robbery and alike, to finance their addiction. So these drug dealer profit in the end from these crimes. The question for me was, how to reduce crime and not how to reduce the individual costs for 'kicks'. TH Crack, methamphetamine and highly refined cocaine have removed people from my life ... I believe that these drugs are highly dangerous. However, some people do seem to be able to use them for recreation with few dangerous repercussions, or even none at all ... some it kills quickly. The worst thing I have noticed about methamphetamine (or crack) is that people go crazy from lack of sleep, poor nutrition, etc. I would strongly caution people NOT to consume these drugs, as in most cases where friends or people I have known about have taken these drugs, to excess, it has killed them, left them in mental wards, destroyed their health, etc. Still, I would not have people punished for using these drugs -- they do enough harm to themselves, why would I want to abuse them further ... however, any crimes they commit should be prosecuted ... if people are going to commit suicide, and they can't get drugs to do it with, they will find another way ... One thing to remember about all drugs of this nature is how much it was adulterated and with what. That is an unknown. Hence the regular occurrences of overdoses, and the effects of toxins and chemicals which shouldn't even be in a drug. What's been mixed in may be more of a danger than the drug itself. Just saying. One does have to wonder what the impact of a controlled pharmaceutical grade form of these drugs would have vs the "bathroom gin" that's currently in supply. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 8, 7:31*pm, (J R) wrote:
Laura 'Dime Bag' Bush. What is East Berlin like nowadays? Do you ever go to clothing optional Englischer Park in Berlin? cuhulin It's the "Tiergarten" that's in Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fer_Tiergarten and the "Englischer Garten" in Munich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englischer_Garten iirc ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 9, 10:15*pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 03:14, schrieb RHF: On Oct 9, 9:31 am, Thomas *wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& * *alcohol& * *tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF * *. The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. So to "Dry-Out" the Alcohol Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You cannot do that, because alcohol is in the end a cheap chemical, that anybody could easily produce at home. Crack is different and the kind of addiction is. This is, what makes these substances so dangerous. Than crack is relatively expensive, hence of much greater interest for criminals, because the profit rate is enormously high. Only the business is very risky and one dealing with drugs could easily end up in a prison (or worse). To reduce the profit rate, the drug had to be cheaper, but less available. This could only be achieved, if the substances are handed out for free (or low price) in controlled situations. This would modify the 'terms of trade', because the real addictive people are then off the streets. Alcohol is more a health problem for the individual, than a great deal for the criminals. So alcoholism needs other means to to cure it. So to "Dry-Out" the Tobacco Market We Should Give It Away for Free Too ! You insist on this 'for free', but I don't. Actually a moderate (low) price would have the same effect and would possibly look less dubious. Tobacco is a risk for the health, too, but to smoke is an individual decision and not such a problem for the society in general. The addictive people do a lot of illegal things, like breaking into homes, stealing cars, robbery and alike, to finance their addiction. So these drug dealer profit in the end from these crimes. The question for me was, how to reduce crime and not how to reduce the individual costs for 'kicks'. TH I simply 'view' Drug Addiction to a long slow process leading to Death : Giving Drug Addicts; All the Free Drugs that They Want; and as Much as They Can Handle to the Conclusion of that Inevitable Death is just hurrying the process along : For the Betterment of Society. * Cut a Lifetime {~33 Years} of Drug Addiction, Crime and Victimization Down to Less than a Decade. -let-the-drug-addicts-eradicate-themselves- Balance Free Drugs -with- No Medical Treatment for Drug ODs and Drug Related Illnesses -same-goes-for- Tobacco and Lung Cancer -and- Alcohol and Liver Disease =They=Are=All=Acts=of=Suicide= |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com