Thomas Heger wrote in news:9ejg58Fmr8U1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

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

Better would be to prevent havoc.

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

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

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

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence
on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder,
known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any
time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the
communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about
people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are
not allowed and should not be done.

Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any
drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs
goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted
behaviour.

Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is
mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of
housing and food.

Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow
kids safe play in their neighbourhood.

Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to
enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass.

To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the
smaller companies had to be protected.

The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without
apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America.
But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the invasion
of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam: with a lot
of dead soldiers and no real gain.

TH


The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms.

Has no one heard of Sun Tzu?

'The art of war'
old Chinese philosophy of government.

But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country.

I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to
defend themselves against the own government.

I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these
professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to
fight against their own people?

They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would
remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off
the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'.

Or are there religious motives?

TH



Another illiterate moron sticks his head up and announces himself.

Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has
been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of
government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history
of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation
in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants
only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole
purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly
firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to
be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have
returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in
the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that
purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions
of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to
laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of
officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the
consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil
power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their
acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which
they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province,
establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and
altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and
waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to
complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to
bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their
friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages,
whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the
most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably
interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to
the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in
the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold
the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in
General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority
of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that
these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent
states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown,
and that all political connection between them and the state of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and
independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace,
contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things
which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred
honor.

New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine,
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver
Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John
Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton,
George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of
Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr.,
Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776



--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Thomas Heger wrote in
:

Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith:
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

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

Better would be to prevent havoc.

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

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

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

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have
any influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is
definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual
disorder, known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace
with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler
any time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to
large amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick
fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn
short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit,
but it dies ...

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally
important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart
and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men
brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America
... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the
importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which
exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply
ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already
looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a
coward, or not ...

Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say.
(If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you
need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.)
I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this
could be necessary?

I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems
not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend
themselves against the own government.

Are you insane? You are German and you can't imagine why someone might not
care for thier government? Did they teach you about Uncle Adolph in school,
boy.

Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the governed. When
the government becomes harmful to the governed it must go. How messy that
will be depends on how much the government resists. Normally and election
or an indictment solve the problem. Other times it does not.

Also, your forebears would be very dissapointed in you using a pistol
against an armored vehicle. In fact many times less than bright people have
made the argument that it's not realistic to fight an armored vehicle with
a pistol. Well, no ****. Who do you think is stupid enough to deploy a
platoon of pistol armed militia against a platoon of tanks?

Tanks require fuel, water, ammo and spare parts. They require people to
operate them and they require food, water, clothing and various amenities
to survive. If you can interdict them before it gets to the tank, why you
remove all the advantages of the thick armored shell.

And while I get that you won't understand this, in our country the
givernment will find that the troops will not neccessarily make war on the
civilians. Their oath is to the Constitution and ultimately to the People,
not to some transient tramp in the White House.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...gst+Themselves

Also at,
http://www.libertypost.org
The Ulsterman Report,,,,,,

Like a guy in Russia once told me in 1999 or 2000, The More Is The
Better!
cuhulin

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest:

The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms.

Has no one heard of Sun Tzu?

'The art of war' old Chinese philosophy of government.


LOL
Too bad you only know of the title and haven't' actually read it.

But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country.


Really ?
Do tell..

I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to
defend themselves against the own government.


Maybe you should read up on ALL those governments that have proven deadly
for their populations
Here's a good place to start..
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM


I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these professionals
the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to fight against their
own people?


See above....


They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would remember,
were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off the pharao'
was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'.

Or are there religious motives?



See above


Note, you sure spew a lot of words to demonstrate crass and abyssal
ignorance..
Are you a graduate student in the arts or alleged sciences ?

"Gray Guest" wrote in message
44.100...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9ejg58Fmr8U1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest:

The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms.

Has no one heard of Sun Tzu?

'The art of war'
old Chinese philosophy of government.

But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country.

I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to
defend themselves against the own government.

I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these
professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to
fight against their own people?

They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would
remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off
the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'.

Or are there religious motives?

TH



Another illiterate moron sticks his head up and announces himself.

Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to
dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and
to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the
people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath
shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such
has
been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of
government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history
of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
the
public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
representation
in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants
only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole
purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly
firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to
be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation,
have
returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in
the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that
purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the
conditions
of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to
laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of
officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the
consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to
civil
power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their
acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which
they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province,
establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and
altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection
and
waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to
complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to
bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their
friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages,
whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the
most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend
an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably
interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to
the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce
in
the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold
the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in
General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority
of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that
these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent
states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown,
and that all political connection between them and the state of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and
independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace,
contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and
things
which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred
honor.

New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine,
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver
Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John
Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John
Morton,
George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of
Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr.,
Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776



Excellent response, but it ignores more recent misbehavior and abuse by
governments
Just look at all the murder and mayhem committed by governments on their
own people in the last 100 years


But to change the subject and the subject line....
I am looking for a good and readable intro to US Civics for a friend who is
going to become a US citizen.
He wants more than just to pass the test - which he's already fully
qualified to do
He wants more in depth analysis and commentary
In a way, I wish that Isaac Asimov had written a book on this comparable to
his Guide to the Bible..
it would have been a hell of a read...

On 9/29/2011 8:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith:
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

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

Better would be to prevent havoc.

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

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

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

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any
influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder,
known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any
time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick
fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn
short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit,
but it dies ...

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important
... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul
can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the
whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters,
in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a
single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such
men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ...
most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of
their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ...

Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say.
(If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you
need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.)
I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this
could be necessary?

I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems
not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend
themselves against the own government.




You Germans are supposed to be excellent engineers, no one there can
make a flame thrower big enough to incinerate vehicles? IUD's to take
them off the road? Devices to roast pigs in a Kevlar vest?

I agree, those fancy tanks and SWAT vehicles would need to be taken out
quickly and put 'em on their feet. A section of drilling pipe, with a
simple explosive charge and big cast lead slug should make it though
those bullet proof windows, etc. Some cleverly twisted pieces of tool
steel metal tossed out in front of the tank tracks should be able to
wind up in them and slow/stop them. My gawd man, the American
forefathers, the "terrorists" in iraq and iran, afghanistan, etc. can
come up some great ideas, are fine German engineers to be outdone? It
will be the helicopters which will take a bit of thought and
experimenting ...

But, peaceful revolution first, then anyway possible ... and don't
forget waiting, getting the leaders into vulnerable positions, isolated
from the main group, stealth, cunning, poisons, etc.

Remember the earth pits of vietnam with sharpened bamboo spikes which
had been urinated on -- scared the bejesus up and was an excellent
psychological weapon, and effective too ... snares to snap a mans neck
.... where there is a will, there is ALWAYS a way ... it is VERY
DIFFICULT to take any nation where the citizens have a will and weapons.
They must break the peoples will or it is a no-go. The real danger is
in government programs to mentally enslave the populations, get them
used to be unquestioning slaves, brainwashed, feminized males, etc.

Regards,
JS

On 9/29/2011 9:01 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
Thomas wrote in
:

Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith:
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

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

Better would be to prevent havoc.

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

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

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

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise, what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have
any influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher. For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is
definitely not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual
disorder, known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace
with honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler
any time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to
large amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick
fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn
short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit,
but it dies ...

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally
important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart
and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men
brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established America
... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play the
importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers which
exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves simply
ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have already
looked into the core of their being and know what exists there ... a
coward, or not ...

Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say.
(If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you
need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.)
I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this
could be necessary?

I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems
not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend
themselves against the own government.

Are you insane? You are German and you can't imagine why someone might not
care for thier government? Did they teach you about Uncle Adolph in school,
boy.

Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the governed. When
the government becomes harmful to the governed it must go. How messy that
will be depends on how much the government resists. Normally and election
or an indictment solve the problem. Other times it does not.

Also, your forebears would be very dissapointed in you using a pistol
against an armored vehicle. In fact many times less than bright people have
made the argument that it's not realistic to fight an armored vehicle with
a pistol. Well, no ****. Who do you think is stupid enough to deploy a
platoon of pistol armed militia against a platoon of tanks?

Tanks require fuel, water, ammo and spare parts. They require people to
operate them and they require food, water, clothing and various amenities
to survive. If you can interdict them before it gets to the tank, why you
remove all the advantages of the thick armored shell.

And while I get that you won't understand this, in our country the
givernment will find that the troops will not neccessarily make war on the
civilians. Their oath is to the Constitution and ultimately to the People,
not to some transient tramp in the White House.


In America, government and our government employees are servants of the
people, whenever they forget this, it is the responsibility, placed on
us by our Constitution and the forefathers and those who died to give us
our rights to correct this criminal government -- and to use whatever
means are necessary ... it may be different for you.

Regards,
JS

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith:
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

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

Better would be to prevent havoc.

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

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

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

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any
influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder,
known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any
time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick
fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn
short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit,
but it dies ...

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important
... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul
can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the
whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters,
in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a
single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such
men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ...
most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of
their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ...

Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say.
(If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you
need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.)

Again the silly argument that you citizens in the US would be facing
soldiers with handguns..
I'll remind you that the Barrett .50 BMG was designed for CIVILIAN use
and then adopted by the military and other government agencies.


I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could
be necessary?


Then you need to study up on the history of government abuse and murder
(democide) of their own people.
Just in the 20th Century, such governments have killed of more than
140,000,000 people
Just read up on Germany in the 20th Century as a prime candidate of such
abuse
It would take a blind person to not understand that people need to defend
themselves from their own abusive governments.


I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems
not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend themselves
against the own government.


Why don't you analyse why the people in Hungary revolted against their
"masters" in 1956 ?
Why don't you read up on the people who risked their lives to escape from
East Germany ?

Your lack of understanding is based on abyssal ignorance of the abuses that
governments perpetrate against their own people..

"Scout" wrote in
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"BDK" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

http://bondarmsusa.com/

(make sure you watch the video!)

Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses!

Regards,
JS

**** that. This is a much better weapon.

http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html

Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate.

Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot.

Dozens of better guns out there.

Depends on what you're after.

On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to
target.

effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes to
pull the trigger twice.

A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot.

That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the pellets
are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty air.

It
contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber.

Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get 4
pellets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=533166

and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759

and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357.


A
12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00.

Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are
staggered.

In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the
available space.

Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close
ranges.

Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and
than another 5 trigger pulls.

Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge.

Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge?

Both seem to contain the same number of pellets in 000. The difference
is in the powder charge, apparently.

One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5.

Not per wiki.

The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion,
accepts up to a 3" .410 shell.

Hence the 5 pellets discussed.

Perhaps of 00.......but the heavy load mentioned was 000.

Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck
(0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order those,
and I think only a few manufacturers even make them.

:-)

That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as in
so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do.

Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high 1
shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting the
target multiple times in 1 shot.

Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck.

Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the target
multiple times. :-)

Same with two trigger pulls on an SP-101.

However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of
consequence unless you're talking the head.

Both at close range would be effective to center mass....the edge going
to the .410.

You need to fire
both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in an
SP-101.

Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to the
number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3" shell.

Again, not per wiki on the .410 shotshell. Anyway, I have three SP-101s
(as you can tell, I hate them), two in .357 and one in .327Federal. The
latter holds six rounds.

So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty again,
your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed downrange to
match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's trigger.

:-)

Not going to argue with you. You can see what wiki says as well as I
can.


Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best one
shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock wave in
the blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a
period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay down,
only that they are going to drop on the first shot and stay down for
a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since they tend to dump a
large part of their energy to a broad section of the body inducing
such a hydrostatic shock. This, of course, depends upon a reasonably
direct impact to center mass.

So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on.

This is true.

My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which IMO
makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's flat which
again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a revolver.

True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the S&W.

Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all the
variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently arbitrary
dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for self defense,
and challenging each of his talking points to establish that.

Dudu tends to run off half cocked over anything you say or suggest so I
don't pay much attention to him on those points. What got me going was
mention of the SP-101. It is one of the things he and I agree on. It is
an excellent gun.

About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy issue, but
at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be particularly accurate
hence my noting it as pretty much a moot point.

Fair enough.


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...

"Scout" wrote in news:j60bln
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote in
:

On 9/27/2011 7:59 PM, Harry Callahan wrote:
John wrote in
:

.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

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

http://bondarmsusa.com/

(make sure you watch the video!)

Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses!

Regards,
JS

**** that ya pansy. 6.5" M-29 in a vertical shoulder holster. Extra
speed loaders on your belt.



LOL!!! Or, an old school Thompson in a violin case!

Regards,
JS



Tried that.....the damn bow and rosin keep getting in the way.

Well, if you took out the violin you wouldn't need those things either.




Damn....after all these years, someone finally tells me the answer. ;(

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...