A Liberal's Dilemma
Tiglath
The (liberal) press is already raring to go about guns on the latest
Fort Hood incident.
The suspect used two guns, "one of them a semiautomatic," they
report.
Not a dreaded semiautomatic, please.
To most people who don't know what semiautomatic means, it will sound
intolerably dangerous, almost there with "automatic" and we can't have
almost automatic killing in a civilized society now, can we?
I bet the shooter had TWO semiautomatic pistols. What else, a measly
revolver with only six rounds and hard to reload?
What is a liberal do now?
Will they clamor for banning guns in army forts?
Dang, they wish they could, that's for sure, but...
Perhaps, no guns in military installations, give soldiers guns only
when they set foot in enemy territory where there are no Seven
Elevens, yet.
Not a good day for the anti-gun lobby.
My Walther P99 is a little bit safer, I think.
Good shooting by the female cop, only that she should have emptied the
magazine on the mook and save taxpayers a lot of money in painkillers,
and the pain of killing him.
Calibers unknown at this time. She probably had a 9mm Glock or Sig
he, probably two 9mm full-size Berettas (M9). We'll see.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> What is a liberal do now?
Oh, great, another fake liberal... just what the world
means...
Say, why don't you go help Obumhole explain to the
pro-choicers why they need to "compromise." He
never got around to that.
Anyhow, enjoy your PATRIOT ACT, you worthless
psycho, and the billionaires thank you for all the
money you looted from the treasury, and gave to them.
Tiglath
Fresh evidence above of how Bush lovers don't function well in the day
time with so many restless nights during the Obama presidency.
J Antero
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:a5406cca-acf9-4980...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
This guy was an identified religious asshole from wayback.
NPR reported that a few years ago, he was giving a medical "grand rounds"
talk, which for normal people would involve an MD lecturing on identifying /
treating some sort of malady of interest.
Asshole gave his talk on islam and beheading and pouring oil on
non-believers - sans medical / psychiatric relevancy. Some of his
colleagues, after his talk, were asking each
other if they had to worry about him showing up with a gun, someday.
Also, consistent with this cocksucker being deeply religious, he was
worthless in his profession as a psychiatrist, being distant and unable to
connect with people.
>
>
>
>
JTEM
> Fresh evidence above of how Bush lovers
Bush loved the PATRIOT ACT, just like ObumHole. And
Bush felt EXACTLY the same as Obumhole on issues
like DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell... and Bush was
just as thrilled with Bucks-for-Billionaires give aways as
ObumHole is...
jerry warner
why do you post any of your SHIT to any group?
why do you exist?
will God get'cha?
Martin Edwards
wasting our time.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Matt Giwer
> why are you posting this OT to this group?
The point of most all of this is diversion from facts in a lame
attempt to pretend the OT is a different history than Xena Warrior Princess
is history. (Did not Xena meet Solomon in one episode? It would be in
character for Solomon.)
> why do you post any of your SHIT to any group?
> why do you exist?
> will God get'cha?
God don't want him but the Knesset will love him.
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Sun Nov 8 09:11:06 EST 2009
ADR
This is a fake argument. That it happened in a military installation
should not necessarily start a soul searching. It could have happened
(and it does happen) in schools, in malls, in post offices, in fast
food joints, in the work place, etc, etc. Every month there is a
massacre of some kind. And it only happens because there is a culture
that continuously shows that many solutions can be obtained through
the use of the gun and guns are readily available. Withdrawing guns
from army barracks (a laughable suggestion) but allowing them to be
sold freely in the street is no solution. One needs to get passed the
continuous glorification by Hollywood of the gun-totting hero and
impose severe restriction to the use of guns of any kind. Not that
this would ever happen, but the only place to start.
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0cd3beb9-2ffe-475c...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 9:09 am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> The (liberal) press is already raring to go about guns on the latest
> Fort Hood incident.
>
> The suspect used two guns, "one of them a semiautomatic," they
> report.
>
> Not a dreaded semiautomatic, please.
>
> To most people who don't know what semiautomatic means, it will sound
> intolerably dangerous, almost there with "automatic" and we can't have
> almost automatic killing in a civilized society now, can we?
>
> I bet the shooter had TWO semiautomatic pistols. What else, a measly
> revolver with only six rounds and hard to reload?
>
> What is a liberal do now?
>
> Will they clamor for banning guns in army forts?
>
> Dang, they wish they could, that's for sure, but...
>
> Perhaps, no guns in military installations, give soldiers guns only
> when they set foot in enemy territory where there are no Seven
> Elevens, yet.
>
> Not a good day for the anti-gun lobby.
>
> My Walther P99 is a little bit safer, I think.
>
> Good shooting by the female cop, only that she should have emptied the
> magazine on the mook and save taxpayers a lot of money in painkillers,
> and the pain of killing him.
>
> Calibers unknown at this time. She probably had a 9mm Glock or Sig
> he, probably two 9mm full-size Berettas (M9). We'll see.
==
This is a fake argument. That it happened in a military installation
should not necessarily start a soul searching. It could have happened
(and it does happen) in schools, in malls, in post offices, in fast
food joints, in the work place, etc, etc. Every month there is a
massacre of some kind. And it only happens because there is a culture
that continuously shows that many solutions can be obtained through
the use of the gun and guns are readily available. Withdrawing guns
from army barracks (a laughable suggestion) but allowing them to be
sold freely in the street is no solution. One needs to get passed the
continuous glorification by Hollywood of the gun-totting hero and
impose severe restriction to the use of guns of any kind. Not that
this would ever happen, but the only place to start.
==
<chuckle>
Yours is a moronic argument.
Terrorist acts usually involve bombs, or airliners used as bombs. Would you
have been more at ease if asshole had used a suicide bomb?
McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb (his movement was / is associated with
extremeist jesus groups).
Disarming people and making them materially and psychologically defenseless
is a good way of destroying what little is left of the concept and reality
of a democracy made up of sturdy people.
Just about everythng you post identifies you as a propagandized nitwit with
feeble thinking abilites.
<chuckle>
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is a fake argument. That it happened in a military
> installation should not necessarily start a soul searching.
It should actually, precisely because it is so different than
what you mistakenly believe are similar incidents.
> It could have happened (and it does happen) in schools,
> in malls, in post offices, in fast food joints, in the work
> place, etc, etc.
The military is completely different. You can't harass a
higher ranking officer, for starters, while there is no such
thing as a "Higher Rank" between kids in a public school
yard.
Secondly, you don't make it up to a high rank, as this guy
did, without having long since figured out how the military
operates, and having years & years & years of opportunity
to leave.
Most shooters appear to be in the exact opposite position
of this guy -- they're control freaks who've been denied
control so much & for so long that they snap, and finally
"take control" the only way they can.
This shooter had PLENTY of authority as a high ranking
officer.
> Every month there is a massacre of some kind.
And none of them appear to be anything like this one.
James Beck
wrote:
This struck me as a strange answer. It may have changed since I was in
the Army, but I'm somewhat surprised at the suggestion that there are
guns in a typical Army garrison barracks like Ft. Hood. The arms are
locked in the arms room. I never saw a loaded weapon around any
garrison-barracks in the Army, and very few loaded weapons anywhere on
post other than at range training/qualification time. There were
loaded weapons occasionally when an armed guard was required for
something, but that was quite rare.
I'd go further and guess that the effective per capita availability of
firearms on a garrison-post is far lower than it is in the civilian
population. Depending on the arms room, even raiding the vault would
be non-trivial. The one I secured at Ft Bliss had a six-inch steel
door and matching sidewalls.
That's just one of many ironies in a totalitarian organization with
limited personal freedom defending a democracy. Weapons are more, not
less, dangerous when combined with training and discipline. The
political and military hierarchies recognize this and act accordingly.
Speaking of which, when was the first historical mention of a military
arms room? Biblical or earlier, I'd guess. Some things are common
sense.
ADR
> Disarming people and making them materially and psychologically defenseless
> is a good way of destroying what little is left of the concept and reality
> of a democracy made up of sturdy people.
>
> Just about everythng you post identifies you as a propagandized nitwit with
> feeble thinking abilites.
> <chuckle>
Well, have it your way. Let me say that the thesis that "the reality
of democracy depends on arms" is ridiculous on this face. On gun nuts
would dare propose such ideas. One much be a nutjob and unable to see
beyond his/her navel to believe this drivel. Just look around man.
There are dozens of countries in the world with democracies
functioning even better than the one in the US where the "right to
bear arms" is not a right. None of these democracies has suffered
because of this. To even suggest that "armed citizens" can prevent a
well-organized armed group (or the army) of taking control of the
country fail to understand the mechanisms of the modern state.
But such idiocies are continuously beamed onto the guileless who start
believing these stupidities. And the gun manufacturers reap the
profits.
Tiglath
Reading my posts is optional. Reading my threads is also
optional.
Your reply to my off-topic post contains no historical material so you
are as guilty as those who you seek to condemn, and you are not even
interesting, as the only thing a reader gets from your post is that
you are a whiner, and that's no news.
ADR
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:52:03 -0800 (PST), ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com>
Well, I do not know where you served but I served in an active
battalion (in another NATO army) and the arms are not locked way.
This is preposterous. Active fighting battalions are on training
every single day. What is typically under guard is ammunition.
However, ammunition is usually distributed to those on guard and on
patrol (pointless otherwise). However, for anybody who has served in
the army, it is well known that access to both ammunition and guns is
really less stringent. All you have to do is know the right people
and many things become accessible to you at any time. This is all a
day's work in any army.
In any case, what I said is that "going down in a blaze of gunfire" is
a unique cultural phenomenon in the US. Is it totally absent
elsewhere? No, not really. But it is extremely rare. That this
person was in the military and shot soldiers in a fort is not really
any different from a person that walks into a McDonald's and kills
everybody around (and shot by the police later). I remain open to a
reasoned argument to the contrary.
Tiglath
ADR comes again to parade the fact that he lacks the efficiencies
normal people possess.
What is a fake argument? Calibers were not know at the time of
writing.
That she probably had a Glock? Glock is the most frequently issued
gun in Texas to police.
The military side arm is the M9, so how is fake argument that an army
major may have such pistols?
> That it happened in a military installation
> should not necessarily start a soul searching.
The press have already proved you wrong. Every talk show I've heard
goes into deep analysis of why this happened, and inevitably touches
on the availability of guns.
> Every month there is a
> massacre of some kind.
Your penchant of exaggeration hurts every argument you make.
> And it only happens because there is a culture
> that continuously shows that many solutions can be obtained through
> the use of the gun and guns are readily available.
Guns are inanimate objects. They are readily available legally only
to people who pass an FBI background check. Learn the difference.
Guns are always readily available to criminals for the simple reason
that they need for guns perpetuates a black market for them, in which
neither buyers nor sellers give a rat's ass for any gun law liberals
pass.
> Withdrawing guns
> from army barracks (a laughable suggestion)
Sarcasm and irony are a mystery to you, aren't they? You don't even
get when Plato's putdowns of the Sophists are ironic and when they are
not.
> but allowing them to be
> sold freely in the street is no solution.
Solution to what? There are massacres in the U.K, where guns are
highly restricted. You don't even suspect that when a gun in the
hands of a law-abiding citizen prevents a crime or saves his life,
it's almost never reported. Only gun misuse or criminal use gets
reported. Are you one of these people who can't see the difference
between a gun used to commit murder and a gun used to stop (and
possibly kill) a would be murderer?
> One needs to get passed the
> continuous glorification by Hollywood of the gun-totting hero and
> impose severe restriction to the use of guns of any kind.
The whole world watches Hollywood movies, and toy stores are filled
with plastic guns in every country.
As usual you are incapable but to offer a one-dimensional view of an
issue.
If gun availability was a cause of crime you could mark the states
were guns are more easily available for possession and carry and they
would coincide with a map of the states with the highest gun crime,
but they simply do not. Try the converse experiment and see.
Washington D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws. You simply could
not have a handgun in your home. That madness ended recently at the
Supreme Court. That time was marked in D.C. by consistently being he
murder capital of the country, or in second place when not. On the
other hand, nearby Virginia, where you can buy one gun a month and
obtain a carry permit, is one of the safest places to live. Burglars
just love to know that home owners are not allowed to have a gun.
Tiglath
> On Nov 8, 9:15 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Disarming people and making them materially and psychologically defenseless
> > is a good way of destroying what little is left of the concept and reality
> > of a democracy made up of sturdy people.
>
> > Just about everythng you post identifies you as a propagandized nitwit with
> > feeble thinking abilites.
> > <chuckle>
>
> Well, have it your way. Let me say that the thesis that "the reality
> of democracy depends on arms" is ridiculous on this face. On gun nuts
> would dare propose such ideas. One much be a nutjob and unable to see
> beyond his/her navel to believe this drivel. Just look around man.
> There are dozens of countries in the world with democracies
> functioning even better than the one in the US where the "right to
> bear arms" is not a right. None of these democracies has suffered
> because of this.
You obviously have never lived in Europe.
European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
arms. So the flame for that freedom was extinguished long ago.
Don't expect to find it today. People get used to almost anything
given time. If you knew a little history you would know that the
United States were founded by people desillusione with the European
traditions and lack of liberties. They broke the mold and created a
brave new world; their design (Constitution) has been corrupted
enough, improvements notwithstanding, we don't need fewer liberties,
we need more.
Freedom is being strangled as it is. In trivial things, like choices
of ice-cream, we have hundreds of flavors to choose from, but in
important things like, which party to vote for, the choice is two,
which given that both parties are dominated by career politicians
bought and paid for by powerful lobbies, it means that we have very
little freedom when it comes to realistically choosing our
government.
The people have handguns, the goverment has cruise missiles, so an
armed revolt is not likely to take our leaders down, but that is not
the point. The right of self-defense should not be a privilege, and
that is what it is in Europe. In London, Paris, Rome, and Madrid,
order a pizza and call the police and see which one arrives first.
Same here. When it comes to self-defense we are on our own, we are
the first and only line of defense, since any help there is is
reactive not pro-active.
> To even suggest that "armed citizens" can prevent a
> well-organized armed group (or the army) of taking control of the
> country fail to understand the mechanisms of the modern state.
>
Silly argument.
> But such idiocies are continuously beamed onto the guileless who start
> believing these stupidities. And the gun manufacturers reap the
> profits.
I'd like to see you in the middle of a race riot, as sometimes sweep
the cities of this country, begging for a firearm.
William Black
> European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
> were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> arms.
Seeing as this is posted on a history ...
Bollocks.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
J Antero
On Nov 8, 9:15 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Disarming people and making them materially and psychologically
> defenseless
> is a good way of destroying what little is left of the concept and reality
> of a democracy made up of sturdy people.
>
> Just about everythng you post identifies you as a propagandized nitwit
> with
> feeble thinking abilites.
> <chuckle>
==
Well, have it your way. Let me say that the thesis that "the reality
of democracy depends on arms" is ridiculous on this face.
On gun nuts would dare propose such ideas. One much be a nutjob and unable
to see
beyond his/her navel to believe this drivel.
==
Really? Does history tell you that the meek inherit the earth, or that
political factions, criminal factions and established governments don't take
advantage of weakness to take wealth and power?
In Los Angeles in the 1991 riots, after the (governemnt) police ran away,
people used personal weapons to defend their lives and property.
Does that hint anything to you?
===
Just look around man.
There are dozens of countries in the world with democracies
functioning even better than the one in the US where the "right to
bear arms" is not a right. None of these democracies has suffered
because of this. To even suggest that "armed citizens" can prevent a
well-organized armed group (or the army) of taking control of the
country fail to understand the mechanisms of the modern state.
===
Let me point a few things out to you, not that it will do any good, of
course.
First, many of those countries are far more ethnically and religously
homogenous than the US is. Can you get the implication?
Second, the discussion is about LONG TERM survival of democracy - history
hasn't ended. Defenseless people will give up freedom for security. People
who can't defend themselve, and know it, are in a different frame of mind
than those who can resort to force.
Third, in the early 1990's, Europe experienced a revival of mass murder and
ethnic cleansing right in its midst. Many of the countries that you were
refering to as "democracies functioning even better than the one in the US",
showed themselves to be so emasculated as not to be able to do anything
effective to intervene. The situation went on for several years with mass
murder, mass rape and ethnic cleansing going on until the US provided
leadership to end it.
==
But such idiocies are continuously beamed onto the guileless who start
believing these stupidities. And the gun manufacturers reap the
profits.
==
Yes yes yes yes yes. Sure.
Winter had nothing to do with stopping the Germans in Russia in late 1941
(as you have stated in a previous thread), and disarming people so they have
to be good little "obeyers" is consistent with the long term survival of
democracy.
What smarts, what wisdom.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> What is a fake argument? Calibers were not know at the time of
> writing.
They reported last night that they were a 5.7mm (currently a
very fashionable gun) and a traditional favorite: The .357
magnum.
The 5.7mm semi-auto is currently the "in" gun because of it's
small size, it's lack of recoil and, when steel jacketed, it's
ability to punch through a bullet-proof vest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven
Yes, we have a very fashionable terrorist here...
If you've got one, though, sell it. In the end they're just
sacrificing
the reliability of a revolver and the stopping-power of the larger
semi-autos. The fad will come to an end and the gun market will
turn away from these small caliber guns, as it always does.
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
> > European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
> > were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> > arms.
>
> Seeing as this is posted on a history ...
>
> Bollocks.
>
No need to sign your posts.
Medieval arms control law, overriding the earlier Assize of Arms,
considered by some the English Second Amendment.
Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)
Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition
soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his
ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and
such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made
for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such
acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other
of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor
bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by
night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the
justices or other ministers, nor in no part
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html
Tiglath
Since when is a major a high ranking officer?
It's a mid-level command at best.
Even when he is not rabidly insulting JTEM show the effects of being a
bet-wetter who got an electric blanket for Christmas.
Tiglath
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven
>
> Yes, we have a very fashionable terrorist here...
>
> If you've got one, though, sell it. In the end they're just
> sacrificing
> the reliability of a revolver and the stopping-power of the larger
> semi-autos. The fad will come to an end and the gun market will
> turn away from these small caliber guns, as it always does.
You should never argue with results.
It is true that a bullet that does not expand, has a small cross
section and has a velocity almost three that of the .45 ACP, as the
5.7x28mm round, is likely to go through a human body and expend its
energy elsewhere. That's why it's generally believed that a slower,
heavier bullet with a broad cross section is the better stopper.
But with so many variables changed, a bullet's ballistic properties
may not be easy to predict. If the bullet tumbles inside the target
its high velocity may result in more damage than a slower
hollowpoint. The guy killed a lot of people in a short time. That
is real data no matter what gelatin tests say.
ADR
I have never read so much ignorance and arrogance advertised so loudly
> > Well, have it your way. Let me say that the thesis that "the reality
> > of democracy depends on arms" is ridiculous on this face. On gun nuts
> > would dare propose such ideas. One much be a nutjob and unable to see
> > beyond his/her navel to believe this drivel. Just look around man.
> > There are dozens of countries in the world with democracies
> > functioning even better than the one in the US where the "right to
> > bear arms" is not a right. None of these democracies has suffered
> > because of this.
>
> You obviously have never lived in Europe.
I am a European who lived and grew up in two different European
countries and stayed in others for extended periods of time. So much
for your clueless deductions. This was worth a good laugh.
> European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
> were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> arms.
Your knowledge of European history is laughable, to say the least.
Where to begin???? I give up!!! The statement above is just so
ridiculous, so ignorant that to even begin answering it would be even
more ridiculous. Just read some f*ing history, would you?
> So the flame for that freedom was extinguished long ago.
> Don't expect to find it today. People get used to almost anything
> given time. If you knew a little history you would know that the
> United States were founded by people desillusione with the European
> traditions and lack of liberties.
The United States was founded by people who were hired by the company
of West Indies to man their colony in Virginia. Others (such as the
Puritans) came much later because they actually did not fit into the
far more libertarian world of Europe. In fact, many came from a
country that had just chopped off its kings head!!! Most came because
they were dirt poor and in search of land and opportunity and they had
the liberty to do this. Not to say the obvious fact that the European
companies that managed the settlers did a lot of deceptive
advertising!!!
> They broke the mold and created a
> brave new world; their design (Constitution) has been corrupted
> enough, improvements notwithstanding, we don't need fewer liberties,
> we need more.
Wow, another crazy. Just go and order your heavy caliber machine gun
and celebrate your liberties!!!
> Freedom is being strangled as it is. In trivial things, like choices
> of ice-cream, we have hundreds of flavors to choose from, but in
> important things like, which party to vote for, the choice is two,
> which given that both parties are dominated by career politicians
> bought and paid for by powerful lobbies, it means that we have very
> little freedom when it comes to realistically choosing our
> government.
And you get all this with a machine gun?? Now, how come European
countries have many more parties that join in collision governments
(if necessary) without machine guns??? It seems to me that you need
the liberty to take a flight to the other side of the Atlantic!!!
> The people have handguns, the goverment has cruise missiles, so an
> armed revolt is not likely to take our leaders down, but that is not
> the point. The right of self-defense should not be a privilege, and
> that is what it is in Europe. In London, Paris, Rome, and Madrid,
> order a pizza and call the police and see which one arrives first.
> Same here. When it comes to self-defense we are on our own, we are
> the first and only line of defense, since any help there is is
> reactive not pro-active.
I have no heard so much crapola since who knows when!!! Pro-active
defense??? I have heard the argument from GWB and the neocons.
Nothing new here!!! Shoot first, ask questions later!!! Very
original, very thoughtful. He, he, he....
> > To even suggest that "armed citizens" can prevent a
> > well-organized armed group (or the army) of taking control of the
> > country fail to understand the mechanisms of the modern state.
>
> Silly argument.
Yeah, of all the silly arguments....
> > But such idiocies are continuously beamed onto the guileless who start
> > believing these stupidities. And the gun manufacturers reap the
> > profits.
>
> I'd like to see you in the middle of a race riot, as sometimes sweep
> the cities of this country, begging for a firearm.
Very original!!
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Since when is a major a high ranking officer?
It's never not been. Welcome to the real world. Enjoy
your visit.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > Since when is a major a high ranking officer?
>
> It's never not been.
All dwarfs are tall to an ant.
Tiglath
> On Nov 8, 2:26 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> I have never read so much ignorance and arrogance advertised so loudly
>
I suggest you read the posts in s.h.a, by a guy behind ADR in the last
couple of months. He cultivates ignorance as though it was a rare
Bonsai tree.
>
> > You obviously have never lived in Europe.
>
> I am a European who lived and grew up in two different European
> countries and stayed in others for extended periods of time. So much
> for your clueless deductions. This was worth a good laugh.
>
I must have forgotten then how dumb Europeans can be about guns.
Thanks for reminding me.
> > European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
> > were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> > arms.
>
> Your knowledge of European history is laughable, to say the least.
> Where to begin???? I give up!!! The statement above is just so
> ridiculous, so ignorant that to even begin answering it would be even
> more ridiculous. Just read some f*ing history, would you?
>
Another smartalec European who never heard of the Statute of
Northampton.
> > So the flame for that freedom was extinguished long ago.
> > Don't expect to find it today. People get used to almost anything
> > given time. If you knew a little history you would know that the
> > United States were founded by people desillusione with the European
> > traditions and lack of liberties.
>
> The United States was founded by people who were hired by the company
> of West Indies to man their colony in Virginia.
So according to ADR, the seven Founding Fathers of the United States,
George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who founded the
United States when they signed the Declaration of Independence, along
with other 49 signatories, were employees of some English company, he
calls "of West Indies, hired to work in Virginia
And this is the man who demands that I learn some history...
I just does not get any better than this.
Yet another negative ADR will make hard to prove.
There is no historical period safe from the depredations of this ADR
goober, from hallowed antiquity to modern times, it's all game for the
butchering.
>
> > They broke the mold and created a
> > brave new world; their design (Constitution) has been corrupted
> > enough, improvements notwithstanding, we don't need fewer liberties,
> > we need more.
>
> Wow, another crazy. Just go and order your heavy caliber machine gun
> and celebrate your liberties!!!
>
Another bleeding heart liberal who doesn't understand that shooting
can be a sport.
Much as I prey on idiots, I've never hunted an animal, but shooting a
cowboy lever carbine, or one of those finely machined handguns made in
Germany, the Czech Republic, or Switzerland (yes, Europe) can be a lot
of fun, not to mention self-defense.
ADR thinks that anyone with a gun is either John Wayne or serial
killer -- the same one-dimensional approach he has on everything
else.
> > Freedom is being strangled as it is. In trivial things, like choices
> > of ice-cream, we have hundreds of flavors to choose from, but in
> > important things like, which party to vote for, the choice is two,
> > which given that both parties are dominated by career politicians
> > bought and paid for by powerful lobbies, it means that we have very
> > little freedom when it comes to realistically choosing our
> > government.
>
> And you get all this with a machine gun??
So it is possible after all to keep embarrassing yourself endlessly
> Now, how come European
> countries have many more parties that join in collision governments
> (if necessary) without machine guns???
Where did I bring up machine guns, you inveterate idiot?
> It seems to me that you need
> the liberty to take a flight to the other side of the Atlantic!!!
>
What seems to you keeps turning out to be at variance to what it seems
to normal people. I have never seen a single reader agree with you
on practically anything. You are a lonesome mental wacko and I
foresee no change.
> > The people have handguns, the goverment has cruise missiles, so an
> > armed revolt is not likely to take our leaders down, but that is not
> > the point. The right of self-defense should not be a privilege, and
> > that is what it is in Europe. In London, Paris, Rome, and Madrid,
> > order a pizza and call the police and see which one arrives first.
> > Same here. When it comes to self-defense we are on our own, we are
> > the first and only line of defense, since any help there is is
> > reactive not pro-active.
>
> I have no heard so much crapola since who knows when!!! Pro-active
> defense??? I have heard the argument from GWB and the neocons.
> Nothing new here!!! Shoot first, ask questions later!!! Very
> original, very thoughtful. He, he, he....
>
You give truth to the belief that some people deserve to be offended
early and often and doing so is not incompatible with gentlemanly
behavior.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> All dwarfs are tall to an ant.
So your position is somehow predicated on the
belief that a U.S. Army Major is of a low rank.
You know, you truly are insane.
Martin Edwards
William Black
> On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tiglath wrote:
>>> European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
>>> were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
>>> arms.
>> Seeing as this is posted on a history ...
>>
>> Bollocks.
>>
>
> No need to sign your posts.
Sorting out a new account, hadn't put the sig on yet, it's there now.
>
> Medieval arms control law, overriding the earlier Assize of Arms,
> considered by some the English Second Amendment.
>
> Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)
>
> Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition
> soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his
> ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and
> such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made
> for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such
> acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other
> of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor
> bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by
> night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the
> justices or other ministers, nor in no part
>
> http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html
That just says you can't go armed into a court room...
Which seems reasonable in a country where people like the Percy family
had a large private army...
The muster roll for Berkshire as late as 1522 shows that all freemen
were able to supply their own arms.
I quote from 'Passing Muster', a leaflet published by Robin P Jenkins,
Keeper of the Archives at the Leicester Archivists Office in 2007
which details the Leicestershire militia in 1558.
------------------------
Their arms and equipment were specified according to their income,
everyone being slotted into one of ten classes. These varied from those
with an income below �10 (who were to provide one man, lightly armoured,
with bow and halberd) to a magnate worth in excess of �1,000 who was
charged with providing a small army of his own (6 armoured demi-lances,
10 light horsemen, 40 corselets or suits of armour, 40 brigandines or
�studded� jackets, 40 pikes, 30 longbows and sheaves of arrows, 30 steel
caps, 20 bills or halberds, 20 haquebuts or simple firearms and 20
morion or sallet helmets).
The whole was under the supervision of the Lord-Lieutenant of the shire
� another new creation, to represent the crown locally. As a further
refinement Parliament then passed an Acte for the taking of Musters;
requiring the gathering of the military force of a county, for training
and inspection. Henceforth, an efficient soldier of the militia (and by
extension - in years to come � anyone or anything performing
satisfactorily) might be said to have �passed muster�.
--------------------------------
In 1573 the system was reformed and the Trayned Bandes were formed.
These were made up of all able bodied men who were householders and were
armed from state sources, but the men kept their arms at home.
John Bunyan famously practised his pike drill at his house in Bedford.
Larry Caldwell
@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aret...@yahoo.com (ADR) says...
> Withdrawing guns
> from army barracks (a laughable suggestion)
Surprise. Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
reasonable expectation of needing them. At all other times, weapons are
secured in the armory. You will notice that soldiers did not shoot
back, because they had nothing to shoot with. It took a police officer
to stop the mayhem.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Tiglath
wrote:
> In article <0cd3beb9-2ffe-475c-96f1-5167074b6a08
> @f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aretz...@yahoo.com (ADR) says...
>
> > Withdrawing guns
> > from army barracks (a laughable suggestion)
>
> Surprise.
No surprise. ADR post likes to fake experience and knowledge, like
knowledge of Greek, knowledge of history, and knowledge of military
life.
> Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
> reasonable expectation of needing them.
Of course they are not. I served two years in North Africa and we
only had ammo during firearms practice, on guard duty or on patrol in
the desert, though officers were allowed to have loaded sidearms at
will, but rarely did.
> At all other times, weapons are
> secured in the armory. You will notice that soldiers did not shoot
> back, because they had nothing to shoot with. It took a police officer
> to stop the mayhem.
"Small" details like that are lost on that fellow with the utmost
ease.
Tiglath
My oh, my, the law of intended consequences: touch a nerve and Marty
loses his temper.
His is not a whiner, sorry, he is an angry whiner.
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Tiglath wrote:
> >>> European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
> >>> were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> >>> arms.
> >> Seeing as this is posted on a history ...
>
> >> Bollocks.
>
> > No need to sign your posts.
>
> Sorting out a new account, hadn't put the sig on yet, it's there now.
>
>
Love signatures don't you. Letting others say what you can't think of
yourself.
>
>
>
> > Medieval arms control law, overriding the earlier Assize of Arms,
> > considered by some the English Second Amendment.
>
> > Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)
>
> >http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html
>
> That just says you can't go armed into a court room...
>
Are you blind or a liar?
Blind liar? The link clearly says.
"nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor
in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part
elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King,"
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > All dwarfs are tall to an ant.
>
> So your position is somehow predicated on the
> belief that a U.S. Army Major is of a low rank.
>
Strawman. The last refuge of the rhetorically challenged.
Soren Larsen
> In article <0cd3beb9-2ffe-475c-96f1-5167074b6a08
> @f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aret...@yahoo.com (ADR) says...
>
>> Withdrawing guns
>> from army barracks (a laughable suggestion)
>
> Surprise. Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
> reasonable expectation of needing them. At all other times, weapons
> are secured in the armory. You will notice that soldiers did not
> shoot back, because they had nothing to shoot with. It took a police
> officer to stop the mayhem.
So shootouts are rare at US military installations?
--
History is not what it used to be.
ADR
> > Surprise.
>
> No surprise. ADR post likes to fake experience and knowledge, like
> knowledge of Greek, knowledge of history, and knowledge of military
> life.
Keep embarrashing yourself. I served over three years in the army in
a shooting war
> > Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
> > reasonable expectation of needing them.
>
> Of course they are not. I served two years in North Africa and we
> only had ammo during firearms practice, on guard duty or on patrol in
> the desert, though officers were allowed to have loaded sidearms at
> will, but rarely did.
Which is exactly what I said. But although ammunition is available
when on duty, it is really not hard to come by if you have the right
connections. In addition, tones of ammunition is available off camp.
The weapons are always readily available to all. Why are you keep
making a fool of yourself????
Tiglath
>
> > > Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
> > > reasonable expectation of needing them.
>
> > Of course they are not. I served two years in North Africa and we
> > only had ammo during firearms practice, on guard duty or on patrol in
> > the desert, though officers were allowed to have loaded sidearms at
> > will, but rarely did.
>
> Which is exactly what I said.
Your "exactly"s always lack exactitude.
You ALSO added this gem.
"However, for anybody who has served in the army, it is well known
that access to both ammunition and guns is really less stringent. All
you have to do is know the right people
and many things become accessible to you at any time. This is all a
day's work in any army."
Maybe that is the case in the Mickey Mouse outfit you served in, but
it is fallacious to generalize from that particular case to the
general.
Watching Sergeant Bilko doesn't make you an army veteran, did you know
that?
Tiglath
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > In article <0cd3beb9-2ffe-475c-96f1-5167074b6a08
>
> >> Withdrawing guns
> >> from army barracks (a laughable suggestion)
>
> > Surprise. Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
> > reasonable expectation of needing them. At all other times, weapons
> > are secured in the armory. You will notice that soldiers did not
> > shoot back, because they had nothing to shoot with. It took a police
> > officer to stop the mayhem.
>
> So shootouts are rare at US military installations?
>
There are such installations in many parts of the world.
If the installation is in say Oklahoma, you can get any ammo you need
in the street, but if you are in say Germany or Spain, you just can't
so easily.
I doubt very much that one can get "anything you want" in the way of
ordnance inside a base, as that notorious poster suggested and in the
general sense he posted it.
Tiglath
>
> > > Surprise.
>
> > No surprise. ADR post likes to fake experience and knowledge, like
> > knowledge of Greek, knowledge of history, and knowledge of military
> > life.
>
> Keep embarrashing yourself. I served over three years in the army in
> a shooting war
You still appear shell-shocked.
Here is a more likely though less epic explanation for your mental
inefficiencies: where other people have the intelligent cortex you
have a small rotting armadillo, which crawled in your head while lying
drunk on a field.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So your position is somehow predicated on the
> > belief that a U.S. Army Major is of a low rank.
>
> Strawman.
No, honey, a "strawman" is an argument that nobody
has made, why you clearly did argue that a Major is
of a low rank.
Tiglath
I am not your honey, faggot.
If I so clearly argued that then you should have no problem quoting
me.
Let is see you do it.
ADR
Keep embarrassing yourself with your continuous stupidities. Your
summary of European history has given a lot of people here hearty
laughs. I have never seen such stupidities posted here, not even by
JTEM (OK, may be not him). But idiots and megalomaniacs like you
abound everywhere...and most notably in the Usenet. Actually, reading
your postings and your total lack of comprehension of mental processes
beyond the fifth grade clearly illustrates why shoot outs are that
common. There are just too many unhinged persons like you walking
around.
ADR
ADR
Missing ordnance from military posts????? Wow, you must think that
this is really unusual!!!
Tiglath
>
> Keep embarrassing yourself with your continuous stupidities. Your
> summary of European history has given a lot of people here hearty
> laughs. I have never seen such stupidities posted here, not even by
> JTEM (OK, may be not him). But idiots and megalomaniacs like you
> abound everywhere...and most notably in the Usenet. Actually, reading
> your postings and your total lack of comprehension of mental processes
> beyond the fifth grade clearly illustrates why shoot outs are that
> common. There are just too many unhinged persons like you walking
> around.
Another cinder-block of a paragraph filled with blabbery sans evidence
You are like a fox-terrier nipping at my heels.
ADR keeps coming to a gun fight with a rusty spoon. Hilarious.
ADR's most recent howlers include:
"[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
ADR does not want to talk about that one, lest he compounds his error
as he tries to paper over it. As he did when he tried to defend one
of his worse howlers to date:
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
By trying to brazen it out with this:
"And I stand by it as do all modern military historians."
ADR doesn't want to talk about that either, lest Winston Churchill
slaps him hard again.
Here is a slap for the other cheek:
"It is no wonder that thousands of Germans froze to death that
winter. By the turn of the year they had suffered about 100,000 cases
of frostbite, more than 14,000 of which required amputations. By the
end of that terrible winter the number of frostbite victims exceeded a
quarter of a million, and more than 90 percent were second- and third-
degree cases. To these must be added thousands of cases of pneumonia,
influenza, and trenchfoot. The impact of those non-battle casualties
was tremendous."
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp#3
The fox-terrier is always on a roll. Yesterday he posted this:
"The United States was founded by people who were hired by the company
of West Indies to man their colony in Virginia."
It's just a matter of time until he reiterates that he stands by it,
and that all historians agree with him.
And this pathetic and delusional individual keeps lecturing the
readers in every one of his post, oblivious to the reputation his
howlers have earned him, and assuming that someone still believes that
what he writes contains useful information.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Tiglath
It is not believable that it is usual for the reasons you suggest.
am...@hotmail.com
> were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> arms.
Tiglath, I don't think that extending of the English law (no matter
what it says) to the whole continent or even to the Western and
Central Europe is going to work as a valid argument because there are
too many examples to the contrary: "people" (of various social ranks)
routinely had been armed during the MA and early-modern times. Judging
by the number of XIX century revolutions and upraisings, they, quite
often, had been armed even in the reasonably modern times (which, of
course, does not necessarily mean that they had been carrying weapons
on a daily basis)..
But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
"castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked. Some of them became
(more or less) <whatever> before the US came into the existence:
probably XVIII would be a safe guess for most of Western and Central
Europe. In the early XIX an armed civilian was a rarity limited to the
"exotic" places like Corsica or (no offense :-)) certain parts of
Spain or Italy.
One more factor to consider as a part of a "castration" process is
existence of a strong centralized goverment with the resulting uniform
system of a law enforcement. In France it was inplace even before
Revolution but in the US there are still numerous "local" laws and
most of the law enforcement is decentralized down to a community
level.
>So the flame for that freedom was extinguished long ago.
> Don't expect to find it today.
Yes, short of something really nasty and dramatic, changes are
unlikely..
> People get used to almost anything
> given time.
What's worse, they learn to like existing reality.
> If you knew a little history you would know that the
> United States were founded by people desillusione with the European
> traditions and lack of liberties.
I suspect that, to a certain degree the issue was not as much an
absense of "liberty" (at least some of the Founders could not complain
about its absense) as the policy of the British goverment which put
certain groups of the the colonists at economic disadvantage
(including limited ability to have a successful political career). :-)
> They broke the mold and created a
> brave new world; their design (Constitution) has been corrupted
> enough, improvements notwithstanding, we don't need fewer liberties,
> we need more.
Hear! Hear!
>
> Freedom is being strangled as it is. In trivial things, like choices
> of ice-cream, we have hundreds of flavors to choose from, but in
> important things like, which party to vote for, the choice is two,
> which given that both parties are dominated by career politicians
> bought and paid for by powerful lobbies, it means that we have very
> little freedom when it comes to realistically choosing our
> government.
Personally, I would send all of them to start digging canal from
Boston (or NY, I'm reasonably open-minded) to San Francisco. :-)
Tiglath
> Tiglath, I don't think that extending of the English law (no matter
> what it says) to the whole continent
Fine. It was an exaggeration and not accurate for every European
country, and not the best way to make the point that the loss of the
right to bear arms dates from way, way back in most European
countries, and for generations the right to be armed has not been a
public expectation. And that missing liberty, among others, is one
the Founding Fathers saw fit to restore in their brand new country.
So the attitude of many Europeans to wonder why we need guns, if they
have been doing "fine" without them for so long. Which is like the
Romans wondering what is all the fuss about potatoes, tomatoes,
chiilis, tobacco, and peppers, because their empire achieved greatness
without a trace of marinara sauce in it.
It's like trying to explain to a Gaul the delights of pomme frites?
> Judging
> by the number of XIX century revolutions and upraisings, they, quite
> often, had been armed even in the reasonably modern times (which, of
> course, does not necessarily mean that they had been carrying weapons
> on a daily basis)..
>
Or had them legally.
> But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
>
> One more factor to consider as a part of a "castration" process is
> existence of a strong centralized goverment with the resulting uniform
> system of a law enforcement. In France it was inplace even before
> Revolution but in the US there are still numerous "local" laws and
> most of the law enforcement is decentralized down to a community
> level.
>
Funnily in the U.S. the right to bear arms comes from the central
government; it's the states that limit and restrict, and at times
practically abolish, the Second Amendment.
> >So the flame for that freedom was extinguished long ago.
> > Don't expect to find it today.
>
> Yes, short of something really nasty and dramatic, changes are
> unlikely..
>
> > People get used to almost anything
> > given time.
>
> What's worse, they learn to like existing reality.
>
>
> > Freedom is being strangled as it is. In trivial things, like choices
> > of ice-cream, we have hundreds of flavors to choose from, but in
> > important things like, which party to vote for, the choice is two,
> > which given that both parties are dominated by career politicians
> > bought and paid for by powerful lobbies, it means that we have very
> > little freedom when it comes to realistically choosing our
> > government.
>
> Personally, I would send all of them to start digging canal from
> Boston (or NY, I'm reasonably open-minded) to San Francisco. :-)
Term limits is the brightest hope, but who will legislate against the
legislators?
The system needs to count individual no-votes as a vote against the
system and at certain level trigger correction.
Millions of citizens are left out of the political process because
they refuse to vote for either of the corrupt parties holding a
political monopoly. To vote for the small fry parties is to waste a
vote, so they stay home.
Look at Obama, he is Bush light. So much for change. Health care
reform looks real bad, the public option if we get one will be
defanged so that the big money from the health industry needed for
campaigns keeps rolling in.
If twelve jurors can be brougth from the street and decide reasonably
well matters of liberty and death in a court, without any of them
being career jurors, there is no reason why we need career senators
and representatives to decide stepwise changes in our laws. They
build empires and corrupt ties and end up carrying the water for
CEOs.
Obama has already promised not to have competition for U.S. drug
companies by considering suppliers abroad.
You look at some other countries and think, "It could be worse." But
then you know also that it could be marvelous and it isn't.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 9, 4:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Tiglath, I don't think that extending of the English law (no matter
> > what it says) to the whole continent
>
> Fine. It was an exaggeration and not accurate for every European
> country, and not the best way to make the point that the loss of the
> right to bear arms dates from way, way back in most European
> countries, and for generations the right to be armed has not been a
> public expectation.
I guessed that you brought it just as a general example of the early
attempts in this direction and not as an accomplished fact. My comment
was prompted by a number of posts in which your statement seemingly
was taken too literary.
> And that missing liberty, among others, is one
> the Founding Fathers saw fit to restore in their brand new country.
>
Indeed, and they made a stress on individual's liberty as opposite to
a popular at these times idea of state's predominance over individual
(look at most of the rhetoric and practice of the French Revolution).
> So the attitude of many Europeans to wonder why we need guns, if they
> have been doing "fine" without them for so long.
Yeah. A tendency to extend habits of one culture to a substantially
different another is, quite often, annoying and on many occassions
dangerous.
> Which is like the
> Romans wondering what is all the fuss about potatoes, tomatoes,
> chiilis, tobacco, and peppers, because their empire achieved greatness
> without a trace of marinara sauce in it.
Or certain cultures considering trousers as a sign of a barbarism. :-)
>
> It's like trying to explain to a Gaul the delights of pomme frites?
>
> > Judging
> > by the number of XIX century revolutions and uprisings, they, quite
> > often, had been armed even in the reasonably modern times (which, of
> > course, does not necessarily mean that they had been carrying weapons
> > on a daily basis)..
>
> Or had them legally.
Well, in many cases having them had been quite legal but people were
not carrying them routinely for their protection because (a)
environment was safe enough and (b) state with the developed law
enforcement was there.
>
> > But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
>
> > One more factor to consider as a part of a "castration" process is
> > existence of a strong centralized government with the resulting uniform
> > system of a law enforcement. In France it was in place even before
> > Revolution but in the US there are still numerous "local" laws and
> > most of the law enforcement is decentralized down to a community
> > level.
>
> Funnily in the U.S. the right to bear arms comes from the central
> government; it's the states that limit and restrict, and at times
> practically abolish, the Second Amendment.
>
In MA carrying crossbow in a trunk of your car is prohibited
unless .... you are a handicapped person. A history of this is a
little bit on a bizarre side (but has a solid line of a reasoning
behind it, at least from a certain perspective) but not quite
surprising taking into an account the fact that we are one of the most
liberal states.
>
>
> > >So the flame for that freedom was extinguished long ago.
> > > Don't expect to find it today.
>
> > Yes, short of something really nasty and dramatic, changes are
> > unlikely..
>
> > > People get used to almost anything
> > > given time.
>
> > What's worse, they learn to like existing reality.
>
> > > Freedom is being strangled as it is. In trivial things, like choices
> > > of ice-cream, we have hundreds of flavors to choose from, but in
> > > important things like, which party to vote for, the choice is two,
> > > which given that both parties are dominated by career politicians
> > > bought and paid for by powerful lobbies, it means that we have very
> > > little freedom when it comes to realistically choosing our
> > > government.
>
> > Personally, I would send all of them to start digging canal from
> > Boston (or NY, I'm reasonably open-minded) to San Francisco. :-)
>
> Term limits is the brightest hope, but who will legislate against the
> legislators?
Again, in MA "we the people" had been time and again shown that our
servants know better then their employers. At least I never voted for
any of these clowns.
>
> The system needs to count individual no-votes as a vote against the
> system and at certain level trigger correction.
>
Great idea but as you yourself remarked .....
> Millions of citizens are left out of the political process because
> they refuse to vote for either of the corrupt parties holding a
> political monopoly. To vote for the small fry parties is to waste a
> vote, so they stay home.
>
> Look at Obama, he is Bush light.
To think about it, Bush could make a popular (among the liberals)
Democratic President: budget exploded, social programs increased and
so did the government.
> So much for change. Health care
> reform looks real bad, the public option if we get one will be
> defanged so that the big money from the health industry needed for
> campaigns keeps rolling in.
>
After spending 40 years in the Workers' Paradise I have understandable
suspicion about government trying to be helpful. :-)
> If twelve jurors can be brougth from the street and decide reasonably
> well matters of liberty and death in a court, without any of them
> being career jurors, there is no reason why we need career senators
> and representatives to decide stepwise changes in our laws. They
> build empires and corrupt ties and end up carrying the water for
> CEOs.
Well, CEOs at least are managing corporations and some of them DO
create the jobs and have goods produced. Our 'employees' are just
wasting our money.
>
> Obama has already promised not to have competition for U.S. drug
> companies by considering suppliers abroad.
>
> You look at some other countries and think, "It could be worse." But
> then you know also that it could be marvelous and it isn't.
Well, US is better than a long list of the alternatives so I'm ready
to settle for imperfect solution. :-)
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> I am
Sorry, honey, I didn't mean to strike a nerve...
> If I so clearly
You did so argue, clearly.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > I am
>
> Sorry, honey, I didn't mean to strike a nerve...
>
Disgust is more digestive than nervous.
> > If I so clearly
>
> You did so argue, clearly.
JTEM no proof, all claim, is incapable again to substantiate his
words.
I lost count.
Tiglath
> On Nov 9, 5:20 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 4:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Tiglath, I don't think that extending of the English law (no matter
> > > what it says) to the whole continent
>
> > Fine. It was an exaggeration and not accurate for every European
> > country, and not the best way to make the point that the loss of the
> > right to bear arms dates from way, way back in most European
> > countries, and for generations the right to be armed has not been a
> > public expectation.
>
> I guessed that you brought it just as a general example of the early
> attempts in this direction and not as an accomplished fact. My comment
> was prompted by a number of posts in which your statement seemingly
> was taken too literary.
>
You are the only one who wrote a proper rebuttal. ADR and Black could
not. Black lied that the Northampton Statute applied only to courts,
when it clearly applied everywhere. ADR just gave his usual canned
rebuttal of gratuitous denial and blabber sans counter-evidence.
>
>
> In MA carrying crossbow in a trunk of your car is prohibited
> unless .... you are a handicapped person. A history of this is a
> little bit on a bizarre side (but has a solid line of a reasoning
> behind it, at least from a certain perspective) but not quite
> surprising taking into an account the fact that we are one of the most
> liberal states.
>
>
Hmmmm. Intriguing.
JTEM
> Disgust is more digestive than nervous.
Whatever. But like I said, honey, I didn't mean to strike
a nerve.
> JTEM no proof,
You say that a lot. Why not try saying something intelligent
for a change?
ADR
> But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
> "castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
> issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
> the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
> right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked.
Only in seriously convoluted thinking processes, a state of "law and
order" would be regarded as "castration". And European societies are
not devoid of arms. In fact, many maintain extensive militias that
are fully armed individually and can be assembled rapidly. Hunting
weapons are abundant and handguns are hardly unknown. On an
organization level, the European states are more "rebellious" than the
US. It was until recently that the IRA in the UK and Ireland, the ETA
in Spain, the Red Army Faction in Germany, the OSS in France and the
Red Brigades in Italy were capable of major acts of organized violence
against the state. The main difference between the US and Europe is
that Europeans strongly favor collective actions and solutions and an
effective central state that contributes to social welfare. This
attitude evolved mainly in the last 250 years during which Europe
experienced innumerable wars, revolutions and revolts that bled to
continent dry. Armistice Day has been celebrated recently and it was
this day that commemorates the beginning of the process in the
transformation of modern Europe. Many more wars and bodies had to pile
up before attitudes on common welfare hardened. And so, we 've
reached a point at which Europe would soon celebrate the ratification
of the Portugal treaty and get to the business of electing its first
president (horror of horrors, Tony Blair may be a candidate!!).
What is different about Europe from the US is the pop culture. No
European society would have ever produced a phenomenon as "Rambo".
The US has generated in the 20th century unique forms of pop mythology
(comic superheros and heroes that blow up everything in their path for
some claims of justice are uniquely American phenomena). Some of this
mythology but not the underneath socioeconomic drivers has been
exported. In any case, while going down in a blaze of gunfire remains
by its frequency a very unique American phenomenon, some instances of
it (albeit isolated) have occurred in Europe.
> Some of them became
> (more or less) <whatever> before the US came into the existence:
> probably XVIII would be a safe guess for most of Western and Central
> Europe. In the early XIX an armed civilian was a rarity limited to the
> "exotic" places like Corsica or (no offense :-)) certain parts of
> Spain or Italy.
This is not really serious. Major revolts in which armed civilians
took part in occurred well into the middle of the 19th century
(actually, the middle of the 19th century was an period of widespread
revolution throughout Europe and it was followed by the Risorgimento
in Italy). In many parts of Europe the situation remained explosive
well into the 20th century (Spain, Central Europe and Russia are a
good examples). In the 19th century, European states were engaged in
a gigantic process of Empire building, well beyond American
proportions (for example, while Hollywood celebrated countless times
the railway connection between the American Midwest and the Pacific,
Imperial Britain built a railroad from Alexandria to Cape Town and
throughout the Indian subcontinent, the Russians connected Warsaw to
Vladivostoc and the Germans drove a line from central Europe to
Baghdad). Thus, not only were major wars conducted in the continent
but the European states were involved in conflict throughout the
world. European civilians in colonial situations were far more armed
and far more involved in conflict than their US counterparts, despite
Hollywood impressions.
> One more factor to consider as a part of a "castration" process is
> existence of a strong centralized goverment with the resulting uniform
> system of a law enforcement. In France it was inplace even before
> Revolution but in the US there are still numerous "local" laws and
> most of the law enforcement is decentralized down to a community
> level.
There is no castration. Armed violence within the mechanisms of the
modern state is ineffective. The US never experienced anything akin
to the IRA. Nothing in the US ever resembled Northern Ireland at the
height of the troubles. I traveled throughout the province at that
time and the whole picture was surreal. Heavily armed patrols were
everywhere in the countryside, the police stations were covered by
antimissile and antimortar nets and city centers were fenced with
limited points of entry. Members of the royal family and the
parliament were assassinated and Maggie Thatcher escaped death by a
whisker. Northern Ireland clearly demonstrated the severe limitations
of violence against the apparatus of the modern state. But it was
"organized violence" for a clear political end and substantially
different from the occasional nutty US groups fearful of black
helicopters. Thank God!!!
I have lived in many countries and I have learned to discount local
mythologies and claims to exceptionalism. I have never been in a
country that was not "the best country to live in the world". The
myth that weapons dispersed in the citizenry preserve liberty is just
that, a myth. If that were true, some African countries today would
count as the most free in the world and Europe must have been
exceedingly free in the near past!!!!
A person earlier remarked that the lack of European response to the
events in Yugoslavia were evidence that European societies were "too
soft". Let me remind the said person that the Yugoslavs are Europeans
and so were the Russians who leveled Chechnya. European societies did
not lack resolve to intervene. They just did not care to intervene.
When the interests of certain European states are in issue, battalions
of French paratroopers are certain to arrive and the British would
mount a huge expedition to beat the Argentinians out of some remote
islands in the Antartic. The European public is much less susceptible
to calls for intervention if clear interests are not in jeopardy.
They can extent sympathy but not much else. This may be cynical, but
this is a cynical world. All places devoid of geopolitical
significance or of oil may well be Rwandas.
Martin Edwards
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 9, 10:24 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 5:20 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 4:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Tiglath, I don't think that extending of the English law (no matter
> > > > what it says) to the whole continent
>
> > > Fine. It was an exaggeration and not accurate for every European
> > > country, and not the best way to make the point that the loss of the
> > > right to bear arms dates from way, way back in most European
> > > countries, and for generations the right to be armed has not been a
> > > public expectation.
>
> > I guessed that you brought it just as a general example of the early
> > attempts in this direction and not as an accomplished fact. My comment
> > was prompted by a number of posts in which your statement seemingly
> > was taken too literary.
>
> You are the only one who wrote a proper rebuttal. ADR and Black could
> not. Black lied that the Northampton Statute applied only to courts,
> when it clearly applied everywhere. ADR just gave his usual canned
> rebuttal of gratuitous denial and blabber sans counter-evidence.
>
>
aspects of the American history but I never consider my own knowledge
complete or perfect sho who am I to criticize...
>
> > In MA carrying crossbow in a trunk of your car is prohibited
> > unless .... you are a handicapped person. A history of this is a
> > little bit on a bizarre side (but has a solid line of a reasoning
> > behind it, at least from a certain perspective) but not quite
> > surprising taking into an account the fact that we are one of the most
> > liberal states.
>
> Hmmmm. Intriguing.- Hide quoted text -
>
IIRC, it was going as foillowing (I may be wrong on the details): at
some point policeman stopped a car and its driver shot him from a
crossbow. In a typical knee-jerk reaction MA legislation made it
illegal to carry crossbows in the cars (IIRC, under the similar
circumstances the Brits abolished the right of having firearms). In a
short while a lobby of the handicapped people declared that, as far as
the HANDICAPPED people involved, this is infrigement on their
constitutional rights. Rather than to try to fight a lostr battle (we
are talking MA), MA Legislature made them exempt from this law (don't
ask me why feminist or gay or <whatever> activists did not consider
similar action).
Well, in the case you don't know, in MA it is illegal to install a new
shower with the separate handles for cold and hot water because if you
suddenly have problems with a cold water you can be scalded.
Another jewel of wisdom applies to semi-public swimming pools (in
condos). It is required that a guard should be present when the pool
is opened. However, because this is almost totally impractical (either
you have to hire guards for 10 - 12 hours per day or be ready to be
sued by the people who are working and can't use the pool during the
day time) there is a 'practical' solution: somewhere in the pool area
there must be special emergency phone. Unless I missed something, it
works this way: before you are planning to drown, go to the phone,
call emergency, then proceed back to the pool and do whatever you are
planning to do.
The obvious question is why should I trust these clowns with the
really important issues?
Larry Caldwell
763ca3...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, aret...@yahoo.com (ADR)
says...
> On Nov 9, 9:57=A0am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 12:17=A0pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Weapons are not issued to soldiers until they have a
> > > > > reasonable expectation of needing them.
> >
> > > > only had ammo during firearms practice, on guard duty or on patrol in
> > > > the desert, though officers were allowed to have loaded sidearms at
> > > > will, but rarely did.
> >
> > > Which is exactly what I said.
> >
> > Your "exactly"s always lack exactitude.
> >
> > You ALSO added this gem.
> >
> > "However, for anybody who has served in the army, it is well known
> > you have to do is know the right people
> > day's work in any army."
> >
> > Maybe that is the case in the Mickey Mouse outfit you served in, but
> > it is fallacious to generalize from that particular case to the
> > general.
> >
> > Watching Sergeant Bilko doesn't make you an army veteran, did you know
> > that?
>
> Missing ordnance from military posts????? Wow, you must think that
> this is really unusual!!!
Why have you become involved in this misdirection? The pistol was a
5.7mm civilian weapon that the Major paid $1100 for. It was not a
military weapon, and neither the gun or the ammunition came from an army
base. The problem is not the presence or absence of guns, the problem
is unfettered religious fanaticism. Religion blends seamlessly into
insanity, and guns are necessary to protect us from Believers, who will
do anything to keep their delusions from being challenged.
I think we should be waging war on Islam, by telling the truth that
there is no life after death and no paradise. Both Christianity and
Islam fail under that basic fact.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Larry Caldwell
Wag...@yahoo.youknowwhere (Soren Larsen) says...
Unheard of. This has been a real shock to the US military
establishment.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 9, 1:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
> > "castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
> > issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
> > the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
> > right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked.
>
> Only in seriously convoluted thinking processes, a state of "law and
> order" would be regarded as "castration".
It seems to me that you have a tendency to take things too literarily.
Tiglath was talking about individual's position vs. state.
Historically, most of the European states passed through the stage of
the "strong state": absolute monarchies, republics with the strong
central power, totalitarian regimes. It can be argued that US did not
pass through the same stage of developmenmt or had (has) it only
partially (anyway, individual states are carrying noticeable power).
What _I_ was talking about is that historically in most of Europe
handling of "law and order" issues had been trusted to the central
power (AKA, something well-removed from the ordinarily people) while
in the US, historically, most of these issues had been handled on the
local level: every small municipality has its own police funded by a
_local_ budget and responsible only to to _local_ authorities. This,
of course, results in a lot of extra expences but also gives people
feeling of being (to some degree) in charge of the situation.
> And European societies are
> not devoid of arms.
Did anybody said that all of them are?
> In fact, many maintain extensive militias that
> are fully armed individually and can be assembled rapidly. Hunting
> weapons are abundant and handguns are hardly unknown. On an
> organization level, the European states are more "rebellious" than the
> US.
> It was until recently that the IRA in the UK and Ireland, the ETA
> in Spain, the Red Army Faction in Germany, the OSS in France and the
> Red Brigades in Italy were capable of major acts of organized violence
> against the state.
Existence of the organized militant organizations routinely engaged in
the acts of a terrorism understandably brings up a number of questions
like positive value of the ...er... "European experience" in the areas
of law enforcement and resolution of the ethnic conflicts.
> The main difference between the US and Europe is
> that Europeans strongly favor collective actions
"Collective" what?
>and solutions and an
> effective central state that contributes to social welfare.
With the former SU being an ultimate example of this model....
> This
> attitude evolved mainly in the last 250 years during which Europe
> experienced innumerable wars, revolutions and revolts that bled to
> continent dry.
One more reason why in the US "European experience" is viewed with a
certain degree of suspicion and scepticism. Especially when one takes
into an account that it took US intervention to let "the good side"
win WWI and WWII and then decades of the US protection to keep Western
Europe safe from the Soviet Block.
Following an old wisdom: "Wise person is learning on other people's
mistakes and the fool on his own."
> Armistice Day has been celebrated recently and it was
> this day that commemorates the beginning of the process in the
> transformation of modern Europe. Many more wars and bodies had to pile
> up before attitudes on common welfare hardened. And so, we 've
> reached a point at which Europe would soon celebrate the ratification
> of the Portugal treaty and get to the business of electing its first
> president (horror of horrors, Tony Blair may be a candidate!!).
>
I really don't care who it will be or what is going to happen to
Frangistan as long as its members mind their own business and do not
try to teach the US what to do.
> What is different about Europe from the US is the pop culture. No
> European society would have ever produced a phenomenon as "Rambo".
I have no clue what you are talking about.
> The US has generated in the 20th century unique forms of pop mythology
> (comic superheros and heroes that blow up everything in their path for
> some claims of justice are uniquely American phenomena). Some of this
> mythology but not the underneath socioeconomic drivers has been
> exported. In any case, while going down in a blaze of gunfire remains
> by its frequency a very unique American phenomenon, some instances of
> it (albeit isolated) have occurred in Europe.
An assertion that all American culture is based on "Rambo" belongs to
the same group as a popular (AFAIK) in modern Russia assertion that
all Americans are eating in McDonalds.
>
> > Some of them became
> > (more or less) <whatever> before the US came into the existence:
> > probably XVIII would be a safe guess for most of Western and Central
> > Europe. In the early XIX an armed civilian was a rarity limited to the
> > "exotic" places like Corsica or (no offense :-)) certain parts of
> > Spain or Italy.
>
> This is not really serious.
Actually, it is. Did you read Merime's "Colomba" or his letters from
Spain? For civilized Frenchman of the 1st half of XIX a person
carrying firearms during the travel to a neighbouring city looked
quite exotic.
> Major revolts in which armed civilians
> took part in occurred well into the middle of the 19th century
I'm well aware of this but this is not an issue: in 1848, etc. an
average Frenchman or German was not routinely arming himself as a
matter of a personal protection.
> (actually, the middle of the 19th century was an period of widespread
> revolution throughout Europe and it was followed by the Risorgimento
> in Italy). In many parts of Europe the situation remained explosive
> well into the 20th century (Spain, Central Europe and Russia are a
> good examples).
But in pre-revolutionary Russia the ordinary citizens (short of some
"exotic" places where this was a national habit) were not routinely
walking on the streets displaying guns and swords even if their
posession was permitted. "Law and order" was handled by the state
officials.
> In the 19th century, European states were engaged in
> a gigantic process of Empire building, well beyond American
> proportions (for example, while Hollywood celebrated countless times
> the railway connection between the American Midwest and the Pacific,
> Imperial Britain built a railroad from Alexandria to Cape Town and
> throughout the Indian subcontinent, the Russians connected Warsaw to
> Vladivostoc and the Germans drove a line from central Europe to
> Baghdad). Thus, not only were major wars conducted in the continent
> but the European states were involved in conflict throughout the
> world. European civilians in colonial situations were far more armed
> and far more involved in conflict than their US counterparts, despite
> Hollywood impressions.
I don't see what this has to do with anything except the fact that
Hollywood used to have big budgets. Actually, the same goes for some
of the early european productions so what?
>
> > One more factor to consider as a part of a "castration" process is
> > existence of a strong centralized goverment with the resulting uniform
> > system of a law enforcement. In France it was inplace even before
> > Revolution but in the US there are still numerous "local" laws and
> > most of the law enforcement is decentralized down to a community
> > level.
>
> There is no castration. Armed violence within the mechanisms of the
> modern state is ineffective. The US never experienced anything akin
> to the IRA.
> Nothing in the US ever resembled Northern Ireland at the
> height of the troubles.
Yes, it looks like you are seriously confused about what was said:
"castration" (or whatever) issues apply to the law-abiding people, not
to those who are breaking the law.
[]
> I have lived in many countries and I have learned to discount local
> mythologies and claims to exceptionalism. I have never been in a
> country that was not "the best country to live in the world".
And how did you figure this out?
> The
> myth that weapons dispersed in the citizenry preserve liberty is just
> that, a myth.
You are missing something. This is not a myth but acknowledgement of
the right which you may or may not exercise (personally, I never owned
a firearm and not planning to buy one but I consider this right as
important one). And importance is not in your ability to use your
<whatever> to overthrow a goverment but in recognition of the fact
that goverment has a limited power over you. It can be argued that in
a purely practical sense, it can save people's lives when facing a
violent crime (some people can't adjust themselves to an idea that the
criminals will get themselves weapons; they did even in the SU).
> If that were true, some African countries today would
> count as the most free in the world and Europe must have been
> exceedingly free in the near past!!!!
>
Sorry, AFAIK, nobody said that posession of the guns is, just on its
own a guarantee of a freedom. OTOH, if definition of "freedom" is
taken literarily (as ability to do whatever you want), then actually
the African countries you mentioned are the most free in the world.
BTW, in case you missed it, part of the Wild West history were
"vigilanty committees": groops of the armed citizens dealing
(sometimes not quite legally) with the peacebreakers in the areas
where law enforcement authorities had been in a short supply.
> A person earlier remarked that the lack of European response to the
> events in Yugoslavia were evidence that European societies were "too
> soft".
> Let me remind the said person that the Yugoslavs are Europeans
> and so were the Russians who leveled Chechnya.
IIRC, the "Europeans" were extremely unhappy with _this_
Larry Caldwell
willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) says...
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Tiglath wrote:
> >>> European countries don't have a right to bear arms because the people
> >>> were castrated in the Middle Ages, when only the king's men could have
> >>> arms.
> >>
> >> Bollocks.
> >>
> >
> > No need to sign your posts.
>
> Sorting out a new account, hadn't put the sig on yet, it's there now.
>
> >
> > Medieval arms control law, overriding the earlier Assize of Arms,
> > considered by some the English Second Amendment.
> >
> > Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)
> >
> > Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition
> > soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his
> > ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and
> > such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made
> > for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such
> > acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other
> > of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor
> > bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by
> > night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the
> > justices or other ministers, nor in no part
> >
> > http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html
>
> That just says you can't go armed into a court room...
Or to ride armed by night or day, in fairs, markets...
When you read the law, you have to read all of it. Europeans are bred
to be serfs. It's why armies have been able to dominate vastly larger
populations in Europe throughout history.
>
> Which seems reasonable in a country where people like the Percy family
> had a large private army...
>
> The muster roll for Berkshire as late as 1522 shows that all freemen
> were able to supply their own arms.
>
> I quote from 'Passing Muster', a leaflet published by Robin P Jenkins,
> Keeper of the Archives at the Leicester Archivists Office in 2007
> which details the Leicestershire militia in 1558.
>
> ------------------------
>
> Their arms and equipment were specified according to their income,
> everyone being slotted into one of ten classes. These varied from those
> with an income below �10 (who were to provide one man, lightly armoured,
> with bow and halberd) to a magnate worth in excess of �1,000 who was
> charged with providing a small army of his own (6 armoured demi-lances,
> 10 light horsemen, 40 corselets or suits of armour, 40 brigandines or
> �studded� jackets, 40 pikes, 30 longbows and sheaves of arrows, 30 steel
> caps, 20 bills or halberds, 20 haquebuts or simple firearms and 20
> morion or sallet helmets).
> The whole was under the supervision of the Lord-Lieutenant of the shire
> � another new creation, to represent the crown locally. As a further
> refinement Parliament then passed an Acte for the taking of Musters;
> requiring the gathering of the military force of a county, for training
> and inspection. Henceforth, an efficient soldier of the militia (and by
> extension - in years to come � anyone or anything performing
> satisfactorily) might be said to have �passed muster�.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> In 1573 the system was reformed and the Trayned Bandes were formed.
>
> These were made up of all able bodied men who were householders and were
> armed from state sources, but the men kept their arms at home.
>
> John Bunyan famously practised his pike drill at his house in Bedford.
Larry Caldwell
0df23b...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, aret...@yahoo.com (ADR)
says...
> On Nov 8, 10:31=A0am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:52:03 -0800 (PST), ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Nov 6, 9:09=A0am, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > >> The (liberal) press is already raring to go about guns on the latest
> > >> Fort Hood incident.
> >
> > >> The suspect used two guns, "one of them a semiautomatic," they
> > >> report.
> >
> > >> Not a dreaded semiautomatic, please.
> >
> > >> To most people who don't know what semiautomatic means, it will sound
> > >> intolerably dangerous, almost there with "automatic" and we can't have
> > >> almost automatic killing in a civilized society now, can we?
> >
> y
> > >> revolver with only six rounds and hard to reload?
> >
> >
> > >> Will they clamor for banning guns in army forts?
> >
> > >> Dang, they wish they could, that's for sure, but...
> >
> > >> Perhaps, no guns in military installations, give soldiers guns only
> > >> when they set foot in enemy territory where there are no Seven
> > >> Elevens, yet.
> >
> > >> Not a good day for the anti-gun lobby.
> >
> > >> My Walther P99 is a little bit safer, I think.
> >
> > >> Good shooting by the female cop, only that she should have emptied the
> > >> magazine on the mook and save taxpayers a lot of money in painkillers,
> > >> and the pain of killing him.
> >
> > >> he, probably two 9mm full-size Berettas (M9). =A0We'll see.
> >
> > >This is a fake argument. =A0That it happened in a military installation
> > >should not necessarily start a soul searching. =A0It could have happened
> > >(and it does happen) in schools, in malls, in post offices, in fast
> > >food joints, in the work place, etc, etc. =A0Every month there is a
> > >massacre of some kind. =A0And it only happens because there is a culture
> > >that continuously shows that many solutions can be obtained through
> > >the use of the gun and guns are readily available. =A0Withdrawing guns
> > >from army barracks (a laughable suggestion) but allowing them to be
> > >sold freely in the street is no solution. =A0One needs to get passed the
> > >continuous glorification by Hollywood of the gun-totting hero and
> > >impose severe restriction to the use of guns of any kind. =A0Not that
> > >this would ever happen, but the only place to start.
> >
> > This struck me as a strange answer. It may have changed since I was in
> > the Army, but I'm somewhat surprised at the suggestion that there are
> > guns in a typical Army garrison barracks like Ft. Hood. The arms are
> > locked in the arms room. I never saw a loaded weapon around any
> > garrison-barracks in the Army, and very few loaded weapons anywhere on
> > post other than at range training/qualification time. There were
> > loaded weapons occasionally when an armed guard was required for
> > something, but that was quite rare.
> >
> > I'd go further and guess that the effective per capita availability of
> > firearms on a garrison-post is far lower than it is in the civilian
> > population. Depending on the arms room, even raiding the vault would
> > be non-trivial. The one I secured at Ft Bliss had a six-inch steel
> > door and matching sidewalls.
> >
> > That's just one of many ironies in a totalitarian organization with
> > limited personal freedom defending a democracy. Weapons are more, not
> > less, dangerous when combined with training and discipline. The
> > political and military hierarchies recognize this and act accordingly.
> >
> > Speaking of which, when was the first historical mention of a military
> > arms room? Biblical or earlier, I'd guess. Some things are common
> > sense.
>
> Well, I do not know where you served but I served in an active
> battalion (in another NATO army) and the arms are not locked way.
> This is preposterous. Active fighting battalions are on training
> every single day. What is typically under guard is ammunition.
> However, ammunition is usually distributed to those on guard and on
> patrol (pointless otherwise). However, for anybody who has served in
> the army, it is well known that access to both ammunition and guns is
> and many things become accessible to you at any time. This is all a
> day's work in any army.
You have a typical foreigner's misapprehension about conditions in the
USA. You know nothing about the US Army, or US Army procedures. There
are no active fighting forces at Ft. Hood. It's in Texas, and Texas has
been at peace for a long time.
> In any case, what I said is that "going down in a blaze of gunfire" is
> a unique cultural phenomenon in the US. Is it totally absent
> elsewhere? No, not really. But it is extremely rare. That this
> person was in the military and shot soldiers in a fort is not really
> any different from a person that walks into a McDonald's and kills
> everybody around (and shot by the police later). I remain open to a
> reasoned argument to the contrary.
Is once rare enough for you?
William Black
> When you read the law, you have to read all of it. Europeans are bred
> to be serfs.
Tosser.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
am...@hotmail.com
In the 19th century, European states were engaged in
> a gigantic process of Empire building, well beyond American
> proportions (for example, while Hollywood celebrated countless times
> the railway connection between the American Midwest and the Pacific,
> Imperial Britain built a railroad from Alexandria to Cape Town and
> throughout the Indian subcontinent, the Russians connected Warsaw to
> Vladivostoc and the Germans drove a line from central Europe to
> Baghdad). Thus, not only were major wars conducted in the continent
> but the European states were involved in conflict throughout the
> world. European civilians in colonial situations were far more armed
> and far more involved in conflict than their US counterparts
European wars aside as irrelevant to the subject (nobody claimed that
strong state control over its citizens prevents state from conducting
the wars), and railroad construction as being even less relevant
(unless we are going to look into the issues of a relative cruelty
toward the construction workers) behavior "in colonial situations"
deserves separate attention.
The most important thing in most of these ...er.... "situations" is
that there was a clear distinction between "us" and "them". While the
laws and norms of whatever passed for "civilized behavior" were
obviously applicable to "us" (members of the colonizing group) and,
quite often, even to the extended "us" (members of the competing
colonizing group providing they belonged to the same cultural group),
they most often did not apply to "them" (subjects of colonization and
other forms of the civilizing activities). As a result, a member of
the civilizing group could remain a law-abiding and "docile" citizen
of his own country (while at home or while dealing with his
compatriots) regardless of what he was doing to the "natives"
because, at least in the British colonial empire it was for their
("natives") own good. AFAIK, even in the Imperial Russia this specific
aspect of a demagoguery did not really pick up: while earlier
activities on Caucass had been considered either as 'liberation' (of
the Armenians and Georgians from the Turks and Persians) or
as ...er... 'romantic' (at least until Lev Tolstoy managed to spoil
everything), the following 'civilizing' activities in the Central Asia
were routinely sibject of ridicule (for example by Saltikov-Schedrin).
French, judging by their 'classic' literary coverage were more on a
practical side of the issue (even if it is rather difficult to figure
out what was practical in conquest of the big parts of Sahara) or,
sometimes (especially in the Foreign Legion movies) "weird romantic"
side of it (most of the time no real "civilizing mission").
It also should be noticed that when "us" vs. "them" became escalated,
the members of "us" were quite often showing amazing sense of the
extended group solidarity: with all animosity between French and
Germans, their troops acted jointly against nasty Chinese ("them") who
dared to protest against being civilized (with enforced import of
narcotics, foreign religion and uneven trade treaties being a
noticeable part of the process).
In an attempt to make things a little bit medieval, we can look at
some of the early legislative attempts to find an appropriate balance
between "among us" and "to them" models of behavior. As often, example
can be found in Genghis' Yasa: quarrels between the Mongols ("us") had
been punished by death. Norms of an acceptable behavior applicable to
"them" in the cases of colonization, resistance, insubordination and
other "colonial situations" were a little bit different. Even then,
certain proprieties had been observed and the members of the ruling
class were usually put to death without a bloodshed.
BTW, as far as the european wars of the modern period were concerned,
"docility" of the civilians was either directly or indirectly assumed.
Fritz the Great wrote something to the effect that the subjects simply
should not know that their rulers are conducting the war (which was a
little bit on a theoretical side even as far as his own activities
were concerned) and in more modern and advanced times civilians'
participation in the hostilities was strongly discouraged, all the way
to execution on a spot. Once your area is occupied, you were suppossed
to cooperate and wait to be liberated by those authorized (regular
army or diplomats) or to become a loyal citizen of the victorious
state.
Tiglath
wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > When you read the law, you have to read all of it. Europeans are bred
> > to be serfs.
>
> Tosser.
>
Little Willie always reacts badly when foreigners point to him facts
about his country -- a proverbial sore loser.
He reads hastily and lashes back only to show that he is a careless
reader and writer and a bit of a tosser himself, not to mention a
pratt, and a coxcomb .
Tiglath
>
> It seems to me that ADR has somewhat strange ideas about certain
> aspects of the American history but I never consider my own knowledge
> complete or perfect sho who am I to criticize...
>
But unlike ADR you don't lecture people about what you don't know .
You have the right not to tolerate the spreading of bad information
and misleading history facts in a history group.
>
>
> > > In MA carrying crossbow in a trunk of your car is prohibited
> > > unless .... you are a handicapped person. A history of this is a
> > > little bit on a bizarre side (but has a solid line of a reasoning
> > > behind it, at least from a certain perspective) but not quite
> > > surprising taking into an account the fact that we are one of the most
> > > liberal states.
>
> > Hmmmm. Intriguing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> IIRC, it was going as foillowing (I may be wrong on the details): at
> some point policeman stopped a car and its driver shot him from a
> crossbow. In a typical knee-jerk reaction MA legislation made it
> illegal to carry crossbows in the cars
Mothers should be glad that nobody in the Commonwealth of
Massachussets has thrown a sharpened baby milk bottle at a trooper,
yet.
(IIRC, under the similar
> circumstances the Brits abolished the right of having firearms). In a
> short while a lobby of the handicapped people declared that, as far as
> the HANDICAPPED people involved, this is infrigement on their
> constitutional rights. Rather than to try to fight a lostr battle (we
> are talking MA), MA Legislature made them exempt from this law (don't
> ask me why feminist or gay or <whatever> activists did not consider
> similar action).
Hilarious. Police notice board, "Watch out for crippled archers!!!"
>
> Well, in the case you don't know, in MA it is illegal to install a new
> shower with the separate handles for cold and hot water because if you
> suddenly have problems with a cold water you can be scalded.
>
That would totally puzzle people of say the Mediterranean or South
America, where safety is always an afterthought. It's the first thing
that strikes those people when they spend some time in the Anglo-
American world. "These people are totally paranoid." Safety
warnings in hammers and ladders, which humankind has had for millions
of years.
> Another jewel of wisdom applies to semi-public swimming pools (in
> condos). It is required that a guard should be present when the pool
> is opened. However, because this is almost totally impractical (either
> you have to hire guards for 10 - 12 hours per day or be ready to be
> sued by the people who are working and can't use the pool during the
> day time) there is a 'practical' solution: somewhere in the pool area
> there must be special emergency phone. Unless I missed something, it
> works this way: before you are planning to drown, go to the phone,
> call emergency, then proceed back to the pool and do whatever you are
> planning to do.
>
Tort Reform Now!
> The obvious question is why should I trust these clowns with the
> really important issues?
We are not in good hands.
Tiglath
>
> > But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
> > "castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
> > issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
> > the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
> > right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked.
>
> Only in seriously convoluted thinking processes, a state of "law and
> order" would be regarded as "castration".
Bold statement for a man who won't stand naked in front of a mirror
unless it reads: "Objects may appear smaller."
> And European societies are
> not devoid of arms. In fact, many maintain extensive militias that
> are fully armed individually and can be assembled rapidly.
Many? How many more than the Swiss?
> Hunting
> weapons are abundant and handguns are hardly unknown.
Hardly unknown? ADR is sliding into la-la-land again. This is not
about knowing about handguns, but about owning and carrying them.
Keep up with the proceedings, sir.
> It was until recently that the IRA in the UK and Ireland, the ETA
> in Spain, the Red Army Faction in Germany, the OSS in France and the
> Red Brigades in Italy were capable of major acts of organized violence
> against the state.
Great example of European liberties. Hilarious.
ADR tells us that to enjoy the freedom to have guns in Europe you must
join a terrorist organization.
Rolling on the Floor Laughing Loud.
> What is different about Europe from the US is the pop culture.
You have fucking Cold Play and we have B.B. King, for a start.
> No
> European society would have ever produced a phenomenon as "Rambo".
> The US has generated in the 20th century unique forms of pop mythology
Isn't James Bond British?
James Bond sold more Walther PPKs and Berettas .25 ACP than Rambo sold
crossbows... especially in MA.
> (comic superheros and heroes that blow up everything in their path for
> some claims of justice are uniquely American phenomena). Some of this
> mythology but not the underneath socioeconomic drivers has been
> exported.
ADR is ignorant of the MANY military comics all around Europe after
WWII, where heroes blew up things on every page.
In any case, while going down in a blaze of gunfire remains
> by its frequency a very unique American phenomenon, some instances of
> it (albeit isolated) have occurred in Europe.
>
Ignorance is thy name. Where you in a closet all the time when you
"grew up" in Europe? Action heroes are pervasive in all European
countries and have been for decades.
> The US never experienced anything akin
> to the IRA.
No, only much bigger. We call it the Civil War.
> Members of the royal family and the
> parliament were assassinated and Maggie Thatcher escaped death by a
> whisker. Northern Ireland clearly demonstrated the severe limitations
> of violence against the apparatus of the modern state.
Limited? Did you see the hole in the facade of the Grand Hotel in
Brighton?
> I have never been in a country that was not "the best country to live in the world".
It only means you should travel more.
<snipalot>
ADR shows again that has nothing to say but it says it a great
length.
William Black
He's pissing on you as well, Spaniard.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > Disgust is more digestive than nervous.
>
> Whatever. But like I said, honey, I didn't mean to strike
> a nerve.
>
Point your pencil towards Giwer, faggot. No, means no.
> > JTEM no proof,
>
> You say that a lot. Why not try saying something intelligent
> for a change?
I say it because you used a strawman when you said that I think that a
major is of low rank, and as usual you CANNOT quote me saying what you
implied I said, which makes you a liar.
JTEM no proof all claim, and a faggot too.
Tiglath
<firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
>
> You have a typical foreigner's misapprehension about conditions in the
> USA. You know nothing about the US Army, or US Army procedures. There
> are no active fighting forces at Ft. Hood. It's in Texas, and Texas has
> been at peace for a long time.
>
"They make it a desert and call it peace." 8-)
-- Tacitus
ADR
> On Nov 10, 1:40 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
> > > "castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
> > > issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
> > > the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
> > > right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked.
>
> > Only in seriously convoluted thinking processes, a state of "law and
> > order" would be regarded as "castration".
>
> It seems to me that you have a tendency to take things too literarily.
> Tiglath was talking about individual's position vs. state.
> Historically, most of the European states passed through the stage of
> the "strong state": absolute monarchies, republics with the strong
> central power, totalitarian regimes. It can be argued that US did not
> partially (anyway, individual states are carrying noticeable power).
Oh, come on. Many European states are federations or cofederations.
It is not as if the US discovered this all by its own. Even in states
in which no federal institutions exist, regional power is quite
devolved. In terms of federations, you have the United Kingdom in
which now N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales have their own legislatures,
Spain with many autonomous regions (Catalonia, the Basque Country),
Switzerland, Belgium, Germany (16 states), Austria (nine states), etc,
etc. In fact, in many European states, the central authority is
weaker (in connection to the devolved authorities) than in the US.
For example, in the UK, Scotland is ruled by a very different sets of
laws than the rest of the UK (same in Catalonia, etc, etc). European
states have been known to split even in the current epoch
(Czechoslovakia) and others are testing the possibility (Belgium).
Where do you guys come up with all these generalizations? Even
"absolute monarchies" in Europe were a lot more devolved if you try to
get to a level past the grade school summary.
> What _I_ was talking about is that historically in most of Europe
> handling of "law and order" issues had been trusted to the central
> power (AKA, something well-removed from the ordinarily people) while
> in the US, historically, most of these issues had been handled on the
> local level: every small municipality has its own police funded by a
> _local_ budget and responsible only to to _local_ authorities. This,
> of course, results in a lot of extra expences but also gives people
> feeling of being (to some degree) in charge of the situation.
Hmmmm....this is not unique and not particularly American either. It
simply reproduces British patterns (surprise, surprise!!). Although
local authorities in the UK do not currently fund totally (althought
they do partially) their local police, they do select (hire and fire)
the police chiefs and other officers and set policing priorities. In
areas of more centralized policing, it was a development of the 19th
century. Independent of that, multiple police organizations exist in
European states (police, gendarmerie, local authority policing, etc,
etc). I have lived under both schemes (as well as in the US). I have
found centralized police forces far more cohesive and amenable to
"community" input than "theorist" may assume. In any case, this is
not uniquely US either.
> Existence of the organized militant organizations routinely engaged in
> the acts of a terrorism understandably brings up a number of questions
> like positive value of the ...er... "European experience" in the areas
> of law enforcement and resolution of the ethnic conflicts.
Well, do not leave us in suspense!!
> One more reason why in the US "European experience" is viewed with a
> certain degree of suspicion and scepticism. Especially when one takes
> into an account that it took US intervention to let "the good side"
> win WWI and WWII and then decades of the US protection to keep Western
> Europe safe from the Soviet Block.
Well, this is another myth that is prevalent in the US and mostly
erroneous. In WWI, the US intervention simply prolonged the war that
would have likely ended in a negotiated peace in early 1918 and the
number of US troops that were engaged were minor (none of them were
present in the fronts that saw the quick collapse of central powers:
Macedonia and Middle East). Hardly any of them were present when
Lunderdorf's spring offensive was launched and failed. WWII is an
even clearer case. By the time the US, British and Canadian troops
landed in Normandy, the Wehrmacht had been totally routed and the Red
Army was in Warsaw!!! And compared to the battles fought in the
Eastern front, most engagements in the Western front in 1944 - 1945
were minor to moderate engagements, if that. Did the US involvement
shorten the war? Possibly. But it did not affect its outcome. The
Wehrmacht lost the war by mid 1943 (the end of the battle of Kursk),
before any US troops of any serious numbers were present in the
continent.
To the degree that NATO protected Western Europe from the USSR is
debatable as well. If one assumes that the USSR would have liberated
the whole of Europe in the absence of the US and included it in its
"orbit", the incorporation of the more liberal communist parties of
the west in the overall mix would have simply hasten the dissolution
of the USSR. Again, one engages in total hypothesis building here and
one can structure a variety of scenarios. The definitive history of
the Cold War remains to be written and opinions would change from both
sides of the divide as progressively more and more of the Soviet
archives (and US archives) become public.
> Following an old wisdom: "Wise person is learning on other people's
> mistakes and the fool on his own."
One should always follow such old wisdoms
> I really don't care who it will be or what is going to happen to
> Frangistan as long as its members mind their own business and do not
> try to teach the US what to do.
And vice versa, I am sure!!!
> I'm well aware of this but this is not an issue: in 1848, etc. an
> average Frenchman or German was not routinely arming himself as a
> matter of a personal protection.
>
> But in pre-revolutionary Russia the ordinary citizens (short of some
> "exotic" places where this was a national habit) were not routinely
> walking on the streets displaying guns and swords even if their
> posession was permitted. "Law and order" was handled by the state
> officials.
Did they have to display them???? The czar was raising troops of
Cossacks even during WWI from self-armed groups. I think that this
discussion has moved to the point of irrelevance
> > In the 19th century, European states were engaged in
> > a gigantic process of Empire building, well beyond American
> > proportions (for example, while Hollywood celebrated countless times
> > the railway connection between the American Midwest and the Pacific,
> > Imperial Britain built a railroad from Alexandria to Cape Town and
> > throughout the Indian subcontinent, the Russians connected Warsaw to
> > Vladivostoc and the Germans drove a line from central Europe to
> > Baghdad). Thus, not only were major wars conducted in the continent
> > but the European states were involved in conflict throughout the
> > world. European civilians in colonial situations were far more armed
> > and far more involved in conflict than their US counterparts, despite
> > Hollywood impressions.
>
> I don't see what this has to do with anything except the fact that
> Hollywood used to have big budgets. Actually, the same goes for some
> of the early european productions so what?
If you want to associate the American West and Far West with certain
"gun culture", my point is that this was played out in a far larger
tableau in Europe although in this case the Far West was Africa,
India, New Zealand, Australia and Siberia. Waves of colonists moving
there were typically armed and had to fight the locals (as well as
other colonists) in major engagements. Where as in the US West the
Indians posed a minor threat, it was puny compared to what European
settlers had to face let's say in Africa or India (i.e, the Indian
rebellion). Thus, substantial sections of the European public were
quite well armed in the arcs of expansion. And it was usually the
settlers and colonists that faced the first waves of native rebellions
(India, Africa, New Zealand, Siberia).
> > I have lived in many countries and I have learned to discount local
> > mythologies and claims to exceptionalism. I have never been in a
> > country that was not "the best country to live in the world".
>
> And how did you figure this out?
Talking with people in daily life!
> > The
> > myth that weapons dispersed in the citizenry preserve liberty is just
> > that, a myth.
>
> You are missing something. This is not a myth but acknowledgement of
> the right which you may or may not exercise (personally, I never owned
> a firearm and not planning to buy one but I consider this right as
> important one). And importance is not in your ability to use your
> <whatever> to overthrow a goverment but in recognition of the fact
> that goverment has a limited power over you. It can be argued that in
> a purely practical sense, it can save people's lives when facing a
> violent crime (some people can't adjust themselves to an idea that the
> criminals will get themselves weapons; they did even in the SU).
This all springs from the weird notion of the government as a kind of
malevolent authority beyond our control. In fact, the government is
the expression of our collective will. Waves of socialist reforms in
Europe have established the state as an "indispensable companion"
rather than a suppressive force. The government is as limited as we
want it to be or as expansive as we want it to be. The notion of the
citizen in an antagonistic relationship with the government (and black
helicopters) is bizarre, to say the least -in a country claiming to be
a democracy- and it certainly belongs to another age and another
time. It maybe the case that the Europeans feel closer to the state
and the US citizens may feel alienated and powerless, a dynamic that
may explain the observed differences.
> > If that were true, some African countries today would
> > count as the most free in the world and Europe must have been
> > exceedingly free in the near past!!!!
>
> Sorry, AFAIK, nobody said that posession of the guns is, just on its
> own a guarantee of a freedom.
If the weapons are not a guarantee of freedom, what are they good for?
> OTOH, if definition of "freedom" is
> taken literarily (as ability to do whatever you want), then actually
> the African countries you mentioned are the most free in the world.
This certainly follows from your logic above
Tiglath
wrote:
> In article <69171df5-3711-42f5-970c-
> 763ca3ad5...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, aretz...@yahoo.com (ADR)
Well said, but Islam is only a subset of the real problem: religious
dogmatism, which is a subset of Dogmatism. People who cite Stalin
and Hitler as proof that atheists are capable of worse than believers,
miss that point. For what characterized twentieth century dictators
is similar, not dissimilar, to what characterizes believers:
dogmatism, which can be equally pernicious whether it is religious or
nationalistic. It's the same vice whether the object is Hitler,
Jesus, or Mohammed.
The problem is philosophical, and eliminating Islam, if we could,
would not solve much. Christian dogmatist have the potential to start
wars all the same, because God tells them that the world needs
democracy.
Unfortunately our technology progresses faster than our philosophy, so
there is a very good chance that we are not going to make it.
Hitler, our current epitomy of evil, is mild compared to say, Genghis
Khan, whose declared utmost pleasure was to see the loved ones of
those who killed bathed in tears. Hitler was quite removed from the
horrors he perpetrated, and he did little gloating. Imagine Genghis
Khan with nuclear weapons. One such animal may be born one day if
religious dogmatism continuous to have free rein. A violent religious
fanatic seems to relish violence as much as the Khan.
Now what is true also is that nationalistic dogmatists have a march
uphill today: a dictator attacks another country and we are on him
like crabs on a crotch. So it looks increasingly difficult for the
likes of Hitler to make inroads in the future.
The potential of religious dogmatism is far worse, because religion
has always a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Freedom of religion today
equates pretty much to being free to preach killing the infidel and
stoning the homosexual just as the Islamic and Christian scriptures
would have it (which makes clear that those who insist that we derive
our morality from the bible, have obviously not read it). We need to
close that loophole too.
Tiglath
Make me.
ADR
I think that everybody is having quite a belly laugh with this
"Genghis Khan, the epitome of evil and dogmatism"!! Genghis repeated
patterns of long standing in the steppe and he was hardly an
aberration among the Mongols and his immediate world. In fact, he was
rather typical in his approach to both his enemies and his friends.
What set him apart was his organizational skills and the fact that he
was more successful than those who preceded him. As for the Hitlers
of the modern world, you should examine a little more closely Pol Pot,
the Khmer Rouge and their connection with certain western powers.
ADR
wrote:
> Or to ride armed by night or day, in fairs, markets...
>
> When you read the law, you have to read all of it. Europeans are bred
> to be serfs. It's why armies have been able to dominate vastly larger
> populations in Europe throughout history.
Hmmmm...silly, insulting and chauvinist statements, ridiculous in
their core. But in any case, we would love to hear which particular
rebellion has been successful in the US in which the federal
government was challenged militarily. Let's find out what section of
the US has not been dominated by the army or state organs.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 10, 7:25 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 1:40 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 1:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
> > > > "castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
> > > > issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
> > > > the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
> > > > right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked.
>
> > > Only in seriously convoluted thinking processes, a state of "law and
> > > order" would be regarded as "castration".
>
> > It seems to me that you have a tendency to take things too literarily.
> > Tiglath was talking about individual's position vs. state.
> > Historically, most of the European states passed through the stage of
> > the "strong state": absolute monarchies, republics with the strong
> > central power, totalitarian regimes. It can be argued that US did not
> > pass through the same stage of development or had (has) it only
> > partially (anyway, individual states are carrying noticeable power).
>
> Oh, come on. Many European states are federations or cofederations.
> It is not as if the US discovered this all by its own.
They most definitely did not. However, US history has specifics which
are making it quite different from most of the European histories,
starting with an absense of most of the "historical baggage" and, when
everything said and done, wide diversity of the underlying histories
and ethnical backgrounds without clear division into the "ethnic
regions".
> Even in states
> in which no federal institutions exist, regional power is quite
> devolved. In terms of federations, you have the United Kingdom in
> which now N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales have their own legislatures,
> Spain with many autonomous regions (Catalonia, the Basque Country),
You are not paying attention to what I was saying about the history of
the european countries.
> European
> states have been known to split even in the current epoch
> (Czechoslovakia)
Czechoslovakia was a moronic and anti-historical byproduct of the
Versallies Treaty when the victors decided to punish the loosers:
there was extremely little in the terms of the historical links
between Czechia and Slovakia.
>and others are testing the possibility (Belgium).
> Where do you guys come up with all these generalizations? Even
> "absolute monarchies" in Europe were a lot more devolved if you try to
> get to a level past the grade school summary.
I'm afraid that your understanding of France under Louis XIV or Russia
of XVIII - XIX is somewhat peculiar. What exactly was "devolved" in
them? What was so devolved about Spain (not posessions of the Spanish
Habsburgs) under Phillip II?
>
> > What _I_ was talking about is that historically in most of Europe
> > handling of "law and order" issues had been trusted to the central
> > power (AKA, something well-removed from the ordinarily people) while
> > in the US, historically, most of these issues had been handled on the
> > local level: every small municipality has its own police funded by a
> > _local_ budget and responsible only to to _local_ authorities. This,
> > of course, results in a lot of extra expences but also gives people
> > feeling of being (to some degree) in charge of the situation.
>
> Hmmmm....this is not unique and not particularly American either. It
> simply reproduces British patterns (surprise, surprise!!).
Why some people automatically assume that UK passes for "most of
Europe" is a little bit beyond me.
Yes, a lot of things in the US are based on the British patterns but
this does not mean that they are carbon copies of these "patterns" or
that following these patterns always had positive results.
>
> > Existence of the organized militant organizations routinely engaged in
> > the acts of a terrorism understandably brings up a number of questions
> > like positive value of the ...er... "European experience" in the areas
> > of law enforcement and resolution of the ethnic conflicts.
>
> Well, do not leave us in suspense!!
I thought that I already asked the question so where exactly are you
suspended and why?
>
> > One more reason why in the US "European experience" is viewed with a
> > certain degree of suspicion and scepticism. Especially when one takes
> > into an account that it took US intervention to let "the good side"
> > win WWI and WWII and then decades of the US protection to keep Western
> > Europe safe from the Soviet Block.
>
> Well, this is another myth that is prevalent in the US and mostly
> erroneous. In WWI, the US intervention simply prolonged the war that
> would have likely ended in a negotiated peace in early 1918 and the
> number of US troops that were engaged were minor (none of them were
> present in the fronts that saw the quick collapse of central powers:
Taking into an account that I studied history outside the US and in
the place, shall we say, not very friendly toward the US, this "myth"
somehow extended beyond the American borders.
> Macedonia and Middle East). Hardly any of them were present when
> Lunderdorf's spring offensive was launched and failed. WWII is an
> even clearer case. By the time the US, British and Canadian troops
> landed in Normandy, the Wehrmacht had been totally routed and the Red
> Army was in Warsaw!!! And compared to the battles fought in the
> Eastern front, most engagements in the Western front in 1944 - 1945
> were minor to moderate engagements, if that.
You are a really funny guy, especially when you are trying to explain
to me importance of the Eastern Front in WWII.
Just 3 comments:
1. "European experience" in question references to the Western
European (or EU, if you prefer) experience because this is where most
of the 'wisdom' and unsolicited advice comes from.
2. It was discussed at some lenght in many places that without the US
help with the materials situation on the Eastern Front could be
seriously worse than it was in OTL. Not to mention that Lend Lease was
quite helpful to the UK as well.
3. Not without a good reason both WWI and (at least Germany-related
part of) WWII are routinely treated as caused by european politics,
which brings issue of "wisdom" which I mentioned.
>
> To the degree that NATO protected Western Europe from the USSR is
> debatable as well.
"NATO" protected very little. The only thing that mattered was US
nuclear potential (and opposing Soviet nuclear potential) which made
potential conflict prohibitively costly.
> If one assumes that the USSR would have liberated
> the whole of Europe
Are you serious?
> in the absence of the US and included it in its
> "orbit", the incorporation of the more liberal communist parties of
> the west in the overall mix would have simply hasten the dissolution
> of the USSR.
Taking into an account almost total absurdity of the initial premise
(and its total irrelevance as far as OTL Cold War is involved), I
honestly don't know how to react on this specific jewel of wisdom.
Probably the simplest (and most polite) reply is that population of
the "rest" of Europe would be not very happy for few decades.
>
> > I really don't care who it will be or what is going to happen to
> > Frangistan as long as its members mind their own business and do not
> > try to teach the US what to do.
>
> And vice versa, I am sure!!!
Based strictly on my totally unscientific observations, the
'recognizeable' US posters are much less prone to giving advices to
the Europeans than other way around.
>
> > I'm well aware of this but this is not an issue: in 1848, etc. an
> > average Frenchman or German was not routinely arming himself as a
> > matter of a personal protection.
>
> > But in pre-revolutionary Russia the ordinary citizens (short of some
> > "exotic" places where this was a national habit) were not routinely
> > walking on the streets displaying guns and swords even if their
> > posession was permitted. "Law and order" was handled by the state
> > officials.
>
> Did they have to display them???? The czar was raising troops of
> Cossacks even during WWI from self-armed groups. I think that this
> discussion has moved to the point of irrelevance
It is quite clear to me that your knowledge of the Russian history can
be summarily dismissed as negligible. Do you understand who were the
Cossacks?
[the issues of colonization are addressed in another post]
> > > I have lived in many countries and I have learned to discount local
> > > mythologies and claims to exceptionalism. I have never been in a
> > > country that was not "the best country to live in the world".
>
> > And how did you figure this out?
>
> Talking with people in daily life!
Well, based on the same criteria, I had been in more than one country
which did not qualify.
[Anthem to the European Socialism snipped]
>
> > > If that were true, some African countries today would
> > > count as the most free in the world and Europe must have been
> > > exceedingly free in the near past!!!!
>
> > Sorry, AFAIK, nobody said that posession of the guns is, just on its
> > own a guarantee of a freedom.
>
> If the weapons are not a guarantee of freedom, what are they good for?
Taking into an account what you wrote above about the virtues of a
benevolent state, I'm afraid that an attempt to explain to you the
virtues of the individual freedom will be a waste of time.
Tiglath
>
> An assertion that all American culture is based on "Rambo" belongs to
> the same group as a popular (AFAIK) in modern Russia assertion that
> all Americans are eating in McDonalds.
>
>
The Russian "news" phenomenon never ceases to amuse me. People seem
to follow everything and anything about the United States, even the
weather. My father in law, who lives in Moscow, often warns me of
impending blizzards coming my way; I take it as a forecast of good
weather. The same with crime (it's not safe), obesity (all American
kids are fat), Kabanchik flu (we are dropping like flies); it's
endless.
I guess they do rejoice and gloat at our misfortunes even if they are
mostly imaginary.
>
> > There is no castration. Armed violence within the mechanisms of the
> > modern state is ineffective. The US never experienced anything akin
> > to the IRA.
> > Nothing in the US ever resembled Northern Ireland at the
> > height of the troubles.
>
> Yes, it looks like you are seriously confused about what was said:
Tell me something new.
> "castration" (or whatever) issues apply to the law-abiding people, not
> to those who are breaking the law.
>
They are ARMED!!! and UNcastrated.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 10, 9:05 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems to me that ADR has somewhat strange ideas about certain
> > aspects of the American history but I never consider my own knowledge
> > complete or perfect sho who am I to criticize...
>
> But unlike ADR you don't lecture people about what you don't know .
Or at least on the issues where my absense of knowledge can be
evidient (like his excurses into the Russian history). :-)
>
> You have the right not to tolerate the spreading of bad information
> and misleading history facts in a history group.
Indeed. But, judging by his post, ADR has idea of "rights" which is
seriously different from mine (as you can see from his comment on the
usefulness of the right to carry arms; following his logic, the right
of the free speech is also useless because it does not guarantee
desireable results).
>
>
>
> > > > In MA carrying crossbow in a trunk of your car is prohibited
> > > > unless .... you are a handicapped person. A history of this is a
> > > > little bit on a bizarre side (but has a solid line of a reasoning
> > > > behind it, at least from a certain perspective) but not quite
> > > > surprising taking into an account the fact that we are one of the most
> > > > liberal states.
>
> > > Hmmmm. Intriguing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > IIRC, it was going as foillowing (I may be wrong on the details): at
> > some point policeman stopped a car and its driver shot him from a
> > crossbow. In a typical knee-jerk reaction MA legislation made it
> > illegal to carry crossbows in the cars
>
> Mothers should be glad that nobody in the Commonwealth of
> Massachussets has thrown a sharpened baby milk bottle at a trooper,
> yet.
I would not be surprised if there is some law on this subject as well.
The funny thing about the laws is that with increasing of their number
(and even severity) their effectiveness starts decreasing just because
it is impossible not to break them and it is not practical to track
and punish all violations.
>
> (IIRC, under the similar
>
> > circumstances the Brits abolished the right of having firearms). In a
> > short while a lobby of the handicapped people declared that, as far as
> > the HANDICAPPED people involved, this is infrigement on their
> > constitutional rights. Rather than to try to fight a lostr battle (we
> > are talking MA), MA Legislature made them exempt from this law (don't
> > ask me why feminist or gay or <whatever> activists did not consider
> > similar action).
>
> Hilarious. Police notice board, "Watch out for crippled archers!!!"
>
AFAIK, there is no law against the bows so it is strictly "crippled
crossbowmen!!!" :-)
>
>
> > Well, in the case you don't know, in MA it is illegal to install a new
> > shower with the separate handles for cold and hot water because if you
> > suddenly have problems with a cold water you can be scalded.
>
> That would totally puzzle people of say the Mediterranean or South
> America, where safety is always an afterthought. It's the first thing
> that strikes those people when they spend some time in the Anglo-
> American world. "These people are totally paranoid." Safety
> warnings in hammers and ladders, which humankind has had for millions
> of years.
>
The more liberal place is, the more developed is litigation culture.
This is a purely empirical observation because whatever passes for my
scientific analysis of the issue includes too many obscenities to be
posted. :-)
> > Another jewel of wisdom applies to semi-public swimming pools (in
> > condos). It is required that a guard should be present when the pool
> > is opened. However, because this is almost totally impractical (either
> > you have to hire guards for 10 - 12 hours per day or be ready to be
> > sued by the people who are working and can't use the pool during the
> > day time) there is a 'practical' solution: somewhere in the pool area
> > there must be special emergency phone. Unless I missed something, it
> > works this way: before you are planning to drown, go to the phone,
> > call emergency, then proceed back to the pool and do whatever you are
> > planning to do.
>
> Tort Reform Now!
>
Nancy The Crazy Eyes will kill you. :-)
> > The obvious question is why should I trust these clowns with the
> > really important issues?
>
> We are not in good hands.
But read ADR's Hymn to The Good Goverment. It is just a totally
different view on teh same issues so productive argument is
impossible.
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 12:07 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >>> When you read the law, you have to read all of it. Europeans are bred
> >>> to be serfs.
> >> Tosser.
>
> > Little Willie always reacts badly when foreigners point to him facts
> > about his country -- a proverbial sore loser.
>
> > He reads hastily and lashes back only to show that he is a careless
> > reader and writer and a bit of a tosser himself, not to mention a
> > pratt, and a coxcomb .
>
> He's pissing on you as well, Spaniard.
>
Come and check the arsenal of this American "serf", pal.
A true serf like you who likes guns but can't have them is really
missing big. I just got a CZ-75-sp-01-tactical solid piece.
Man, what a joy. A beefy, load-it-Sunday-shoot-all-week pistol that's
is as accurate as the best out there. An ideal home defense gun too.
Night sights are stock.
http://cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-75-sp-01-tactical/
And check out the Walther P99 AS. The finest German engineering.
Visual and tactile round-in-chamber indicator. No hammer to snag
clothes, de-burrred design with no edges to impede smooth drawing. A
carry all day dream. Action not quite as smooth as the Sig, but
nothing 500 rounds can't fix.
I love England but when it comes to guns you guys are fucked.
Sorry, hombre.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 10, 1:40 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:12 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > But, of course, most of the European states became "law and order" (or
> > > "castrated", I like this definition) places (in the sense that the
> > > issues of a personal protection had been transfered from individual to
> > > the state) earlier that at least some parts of the US even if the
> > > right of bearing the arms was not totally revoked.
>
> > Only in seriously convoluted thinking processes, a state of "law and
> > order" would be regarded as "castration".
>
> Bold statement for a man who won't stand naked in front of a mirror
> unless it reads: "Objects may appear smaller."
>
> > And European societies are
> > not devoid of arms. In fact, many maintain extensive militias that
> > are fully armed individually and can be assembled rapidly.
>
> Many? How many more than the Swiss?
AFAIK (and I may be totally worng) NOT the major European countries
like Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Belgium
or even Poland, Czechia, Russia and Ukraine..... Yessss, I found them:
San Marino and Abkhazia!!!!
>
> > Hunting
> > weapons are abundant and handguns are hardly unknown.
>
> Hardly unknown? ADR is sliding into la-la-land again. This is not
> about knowing about handguns, but about owning and carrying them.
>
By the reason I can't quite figure out he forgot knives and axes.
> Keep up with the proceedings, sir.
>
> > It was until recently that the IRA in the UK and Ireland, the ETA
> > in Spain, the Red Army Faction in Germany, the OSS in France and the
> > Red Brigades in Italy were capable of major acts of organized violence
> > against the state.
>
> Great example of European liberties. Hilarious.
>
> ADR tells us that to enjoy the freedom to have guns in Europe you must
> join a terrorist organization.
Well, rights are coming with the obligations.... I just wonder if
they are selling weapons only to the card-carrying members of the
properly licensed terrorist organizations? In a well-organized society
(as described by ADR) there is a place for the people of various
occupations and talents (actually, this statement is stolen from the
old Czechoslovakian comedy so it IS European) and it is only
reasonable that provisions must be made for them to purchase the
instruments of their trade. Of course, terrorist oranization must
apply for the license as any other proper business.
> > No
> > European society would have ever produced a phenomenon as "Rambo".
> > The US has generated in the 20th century unique forms of pop mythology
>
> Isn't James Bond British?
>
> James Bond sold more Walther PPKs and Berettas .25 ACP than Rambo sold
> crossbows... especially in MA.
:-)
>
> > (comic superheros and heroes that blow up everything in their path for
> > some claims of justice are uniquely American phenomena). Some of this
> > mythology but not the underneath socioeconomic drivers has been
> > exported.
>
> ADR is ignorant of the MANY military comics all around Europe after
> WWII, where heroes blew up things on every page.
And Fantomas was (a) French and (b) appeared in early XX. Musidora was
making her career in the French movie series about the vampires
starting from 1915, etc.
>
> In any case, while going down in a blaze of gunfire remains
>
> > by its frequency a very unique American phenomenon, some instances of
> > it (albeit isolated) have occurred in Europe.
>
> Ignorance is thy name. Where you in a closet all the time when you
> "grew up" in Europe? Action heroes are pervasive in all European
> countries and have been for decades.
Based on what I remember, there were more corpses in the old French-
Italian "3 Musketeers" than in 1st "Rambo" movie and Jean Mare had
been killing people by dozens in his "historical" movies.
>
> > The US never experienced anything akin
> > to the IRA.
>
> No, only much bigger. We call it the Civil War.
But the Confederates were not properly licensed so they don't really
count....
>
> > Members of the royal family and the
> > parliament were assassinated and Maggie Thatcher escaped death by a
> > whisker. Northern Ireland clearly demonstrated the severe limitations
> > of violence against the apparatus of the modern state.
>
> Limited? Did you see the hole in the facade of the Grand Hotel in
> Brighton?
AFAIK, the IRA people were not seriously trying to overthrow UK
goverment so this example is neither here nor there.
OTOH, the Chechen activities directly led to the fall of Yeltsin's
presidency and his substitution with Putin. Not exactly result
expected by the terrorists but most definitely profound effect.
Then, the train bombing in Spain resulted in the fall of the
goverment. Again, properly directed violence proved to be quite
effective.
Terrorist activities of KLA resulted in backlash of the Milosovich'
goverment, calls for NATO intervention, bombings of Serbia, fall of
Milosovich, and total disintegration of Yugoslavia.
>
> > I have never been in a country that was not "the best country to live in the world".
>
> It only means you should travel more.
According to the story which I can neither confirm nor deny, the late
Ted Kenndy during one of his numerous visits fo the SU had a meeting
with the students of the Moscow University. He asked them: "Which of
you thinks that your goverment spends too much money on the
armamants?" Judging by the fact that nobody said "I do!", the SU was
one of the happiest places in the world. :-)
Tiglath
>
> But read ADR's Hymn to The Good Goverment. It is just a totally
> different view on teh same issues so productive argument is
> impossible.
I can deal with disagreement of opinion and different world outlooks;
I'd just wish he stopped posting false scientific and historical facts
with the aplomb of a Pope speaking ex catedra. He is a true Bunk
Baron and Prince of Pratfalls, and while some people can catch his bad
dope easily others my confuse it for knowledge, and that is a great
disservice. That's why I regularly list his howlers so that people
learn to distrust him if they have not already.
With Google at the the same fingertips that type posts, there is no
excuse today for not doing at least a modicum of checking up on facts
before posting and protect claims against the most obvious
rebuttals. Ignorance and laziness not a good poster make.
Do you shoot?
ADR
> Taking into an account what you wrote above about the virtues of a
> benevolent state, I'm afraid that an attempt to explain to you the
> virtues of the individual freedom will be a waste of time.
This is fine with me. Go check out your gun catalog along with your
monthly NRA leaflet and I will be on my way!!!
J Antero
"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
>
> Why have you become involved in this misdirection? The pistol was a
> 5.7mm civilian weapon that the Major paid $1100 for. It was not a
> military weapon, and neither the gun or the ammunition came from an army
> base. The problem is not the presence or absence of guns, the problem
> is unfettered religious fanaticism. Religion blends seamlessly into
> insanity, and guns are necessary to protect us from Believers, who will
> do anything to keep their delusions from being challenged.
>
> I think we should be waging war on Islam, by telling the truth that
> there is no life after death and no paradise. Both Christianity and
> Islam fail under that basic fact.
Very well said.
ADR would like common people to be disarmed and defenseless against the
criminals, wackos, despots and whatever emerges from time to time, from the
various undrained religous swamps.
In Britain, a police officer in a similar situation to the Ft Hood incident,
probably would not have had a weapon to use on the piece of shit.
J Antero
And it came from a person whose mental problems were either created or
fanned by imaginery supernatural beings and their surrounding myths, which
constitute a formal recognized "religion"..
J Antero
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:edbb0e4a-8dc3-41f5...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 2:31 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Keep embarrassing yourself with your continuous stupidities. Your
> summary of European history has given a lot of people here hearty
> laughs. I have never seen such stupidities posted here, not even by
> JTEM (OK, may be not him). But idiots and megalomaniacs like you
> abound everywhere...and most notably in the Usenet. Actually, reading
> your postings and your total lack of comprehension of mental processes
> beyond the fifth grade clearly illustrates why shoot outs are that
> common. There are just too many unhinged persons like you walking
> around.
==
Another cinder-block of a paragraph filled with blabbery sans evidence
You are like a fox-terrier nipping at my heels.
ADR keeps coming to a gun fight with a rusty spoon. Hilarious.
ADR's most recent howlers include:
"[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
ADR does not want to talk about that one, lest he compounds his error
as he tries to paper over it. As he did when he tried to defend one
of his worse howlers to date:
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
By trying to brazen it out with this:
"And I stand by it as do all modern military historians."
ADR doesn't want to talk about that either, lest Winston Churchill
slaps him hard again.
Here is a slap for the other cheek:
"It is no wonder that thousands of Germans froze to death that
winter. By the turn of the year they had suffered about 100,000 cases
of frostbite, more than 14,000 of which required amputations. By the
end of that terrible winter the number of frostbite victims exceeded a
quarter of a million, and more than 90 percent were second- and third-
degree cases. To these must be added thousands of cases of pneumonia,
influenza, and trenchfoot. The impact of those non-battle casualties
was tremendous."
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp#3
The fox-terrier is always on a roll. Yesterday he posted this:
"The United States was founded by people who were hired by the company
of West Indies to man their colony in Virginia."
It's just a matter of time until he reiterates that he stands by it,
and that all historians agree with him.
And this pathetic and delusional individual keeps lecturing the
readers in every one of his post, oblivious to the reputation his
howlers have earned him, and assuming that someone still believes that
what he writes contains useful information.
Unfuckingbelievable.
===
He should start posting in soc.history.war.world-war-ii where anachronisitc
propaganda is embraced, and he will find a clueless moderator to hide
behind.
ADR
> Unfuckingbelievable.
What is the "unfunckingbelievable" is the fact that you and your alter
egos account for at least 70% of the postings on this
board...conservatively. On the basis of your production rate, you
could have written the encyclopedia of morons in less time!!
Unfuckingbelievable!!!
Larry Caldwell
3605cf...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, aret...@yahoo.com (ADR)
says...
> On Nov 10, 7:36=A0am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Or to ride armed by night or day, in fairs, markets...
> >
> > to be serfs. =A0It's why armies have been able to dominate vastly larger
> > populations in Europe throughout history.
>
>
> Hmmmm...silly, insulting and chauvinist statements, ridiculous in
> their core. But in any case, we would love to hear which particular
> rebellion has been successful in the US in which the federal
> government was challenged militarily. Let's find out what section of
> the US has not been dominated by the army or state organs.
The last military invasion of the US was in August of 1814, and many of
the enemy troops were Indians. The USA has never been successfully
invaded since it became a settled country. How did France, Germany,
Italy, Belgium, Poland, the Netherlands, etc. fare? They would rather
surrender. Serfs.
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c593c11a-7530-4346...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 5:11 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Unfuckingbelievable.
==
What is the "unfunckingbelievable" is the fact that you and your alter
egos account for at least 70% of the postings on this
board...conservatively. On the basis of your production rate, you
could have written the encyclopedia of morons in less time!!
Unfuckingbelievable!!!
==
For that to go over, you'd have to do away with a whole series of your posts
on a range of topics, that demonstrate who the moron really is...
Oh, by the way, you fumbled the ball again - "> Unfuckingbelievable." came
from Tiglath, not me.
<chuckle> .... unfuckingbelievable, but amusing....
Tiglath
>
> I think that everybody is having quite a belly laugh
Your eagerness to get my goat after I ridiculed you a hundred times
using YOUR OWN WORDS has a childish enthusiasm to it.
You are still pretty much a little fox-terrier nipping at my heals and
it's is not likely to change any time soon.
Your interminable posts are increasingly a jumble of ideas piled up to
show you know something about something in desperate attempt to make
up for having showed so many times how little you know about the
actual topics being discussed.
Tiglath
> "Larry Caldwell" <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
But he would have a whistle.
Tiglath
> On Nov 10, 5:11 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Unfuckingbelievable.
>
> What is the "unfunckingbelievable" is the fact that you and your alter
> egos
What alter egos are those, Einstein?
> account for at least 70% of the postings on this
> board...conservatively.
If you learned some history, science, and logic, you nutless monkey, I
would no have to keep calling you on the shameful posts you degrade
this group with. In threads where neither your or JTEM butt in with
inanities, I usually post just as much as the other participants, but
someone has to swat the horseflies and I don't mind it, it's quite
aerobic.
You are proof that free speech involves a lot of foolish speech.
> On the basis of your production rate, you
> could have written the encyclopedia of morons in less time!!
Thanks for your generous contribution, you can stop now.
ADR
wrote:
> In article <5140ce07-225d-43fa-84a9-
> 3605cf53e...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, aretz...@yahoo.com (ADR)
> says...
>
> > On Nov 10, 7:36=A0am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Or to ride armed by night or day, in fairs, markets...
>
> > > When you read the law, you have to read all of it. =A0Europeans are bred
> > > to be serfs. =A0It's why armies have been able to dominate vastly larger
> > > populations in Europe throughout history.
>
> > Hmmmm...silly, insulting and chauvinist statements, ridiculous in
> > their core. But in any case, we would love to hear which particular
> > rebellion has been successful in the US in which the federal
> > government was challenged militarily. Let's find out what section of
> > the US has not been dominated by the army or state organs.
>
> The last military invasion of the US was in August of 1814, and many of
> the enemy troops were Indians. The USA has never been successfully
> invaded since it became a settled country. How did France, Germany,
> Italy, Belgium, Poland, the Netherlands, etc. fare? They would rather
> surrender. Serfs.
The last time I checked this was a history group, not the morons'
group!! I guess that I was mistaken
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Point your
Oops, I keep striking that (one) nerve of yours...
I'm sorry, Mary, but you're a boy at best, certainly not
a man.
Let's quote you, with the above in mind...
> Since when is a major a high ranking officer?
>
> It's a mid-level command at best.
Unless you live in a binary existence, there's more
than one other option -- it doesn't come down to
"Mid level, at best" plus only one other possibility...
You're welcome, shit for brains.
William Black
> In article <5140ce07-225d-43fa-84a9-
> 3605cf...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, aret...@yahoo.com (ADR)
> says...
>> On Nov 10, 7:36=A0am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Or to ride armed by night or day, in fairs, markets...
>>>
>>> When you read the law, you have to read all of it. =A0Europeans are bred
>>> to be serfs. =A0It's why armies have been able to dominate vastly larger
>>> populations in Europe throughout history.
>>
>> Hmmmm...silly, insulting and chauvinist statements, ridiculous in
>> their core. But in any case, we would love to hear which particular
>> rebellion has been successful in the US in which the federal
>> government was challenged militarily. Let's find out what section of
>> the US has not been dominated by the army or state organs.
>
> The last military invasion of the US was in August of 1814, and many of
> the enemy troops were Indians.
That'll be a shock to Pancho Villa and his boys...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 10, 10:25 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > An assertion that all American culture is based on "Rambo" belongs to
> > the same group as a popular (AFAIK) in modern Russia assertion that
> > all Americans are eating in McDonalds.
>
> The Russian "news" phenomenon never ceases to amuse me. People seem
> to follow everything and anything about the United States, even the
> weather. My father in law, who lives in Moscow, often warns me of
> impending blizzards coming my way; I take it as a forecast of good
> weather. The same with crime (it's not safe), obesity (all American
> kids are fat), Kabanchik flu (we are dropping like flies); it's
> endless.
>
> I guess they do rejoice and gloat at our misfortunes even if they are
> mostly imaginary.
Well, I have an explanation to it. This is my personal theory and it
can be right or wrong so, as Merime used to say, "Don't blame the
author!" :-)
Background:
1. A big chunk of the population of the former SU had been quite
patriotic in the sense of (a) being proud of living in the
"Superpower" country, (b) thinking that system, in general, is good
(life is shitty but there are social guarantees that shit will keep
happening forever) but there are temporarily difficulties, individual
corruption, not enough 'order', etc., (c) being proud of the heroic
past and present willingness to help the oppressed people all over the
world. For them, the disintegration of the SU was a major moral blow.
2. Democratic processes of the Yeltsin's years for most of the
population meant further lowering of the standard of life (both
financial and in the terms of a personal security; big part of them
shared views of our friend ADR on the issues of "abstract" rights),
clearly visible political corruption and birth of the "looting
capitalism" with the heavy involvement of the criminal element. In the
face of trhese dififculties, enthusiasm of the late 1980's mostly
evaporated (except for the small groups). To make things worse,
political prestige of Russia was in a state of a free fall with the
"West" (both US and EU) showing time and again that Russia is not to
be considered even a regional power. Yeltsin's eagerness to cooperate
was considered as a weakness both inside and outside the country.
"Patriotic" segment of a population (see 1.a) grew more and more
pissed off with the inept handling of Chechnia (and with unending
Western interference in what was connsidered as Russian internal
affair) and with affront suffered in Yugoslavia (it was widely
expected that there will be some face-saving reward for forcing
Milosovich to capitulate and instead there was just a further
humiliation).
3. Over most of this period and increasingly so during Billy's
presidency (not a big surprise because Halfbright came from
Brjezinsky's school of thinking) the US were acting as a bullying
power (as viewed from the Russian perspective). IIRC, Yugolavia Affair
brought the first big-scale popular anti-American protests in Russia
(silently approved by the goverment). Perception of the US as a friend
changed back to one of the enemy.
Backlash:
Small wonder that as soon as the Russians found themselves in a
position of at least some economic security and international
recognition as one of the Big Powers, they went in a "gloating mode":
ridiculing "arch-enemy", exagerrating its real and imaginable
problems, etc. What makes you feel better? Feeling that you are
smarter and better off than people whom you dislike. A trademark of
one of the (AFAIK) Russian most popular standup comedians is
"Americans are stupid!" (and overweight). The gas money brough subject
of the US economic decline and the gloating about the financial crisis
continued until it was discovered that Russia was running in the same
downhill direction only much faster.
So your "news from Moscow" do not surprise me at all and I must admit
that their attitude has certain underlying logic which I can
understand (I do no agree with it but logic is framed by the
circumstances). What I can neither understand not agree with is
attitude of the people who, like me, came to the US on their free will
and keep blaming the system for not providing them with all 'security'
they want. As if somebody prevents them from returning to the home
sweet home (actually, couple families I used to know did just this and
I respect them for consistent behavior). :-)
>
>
>
> > > There is no castration. Armed violence within the mechanisms of the
> > > modern state is ineffective. The US never experienced anything akin
> > > to the IRA.
> > > Nothing in the US ever resembled Northern Ireland at the
> > > height of the troubles.
>
> > Yes, it looks like you are seriously confused about what was said:
>
> Tell me something new.
>
> > "castration" (or whatever) issues apply to the law-abiding people, not
> > to those who are breaking the law.
>
> They are ARMED!!! and UNcastrated.
Ah well, the benefitial and omnipotent Good Goverment will take care
of all of them. What was the last sentence of 1984? IIRC, something
along the lines "he loved the Big Brother". Reflects ADR's attitude
perfectly.
:-)
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 10, 3:19 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > But read ADR's Hymn to The Good Goverment. It is just a totally
> > different view on teh same issues so productive argument is
> > impossible.
>
> I can deal with disagreement of opinion and different world outlooks;
> I'd just wish he stopped posting false scientific and historical facts
> with the aplomb of a Pope speaking ex catedra.
It would be nice but I'm not going to hold my breath.
In this thread I "liked" his list of the colonial activities of XIX
century where he bundled together colonization of Africa and Siberia.
My naive thought was that Siberia became part of Russia shall we say
"a little bit earlier" and that the big numbers of settlers started
moving into this area only due to the Stolypin reforms and
construction of the Trans-Siberian railroad (which, contrary to his
assumption, was built a little bit after Union Pacific) and did not
involve major battles with the unidentified "natives".
But details like these can only spoil the Big Picture and we must be
grateful that he did not add Cortes and Pissaro to the same list. :-)
> He is a true Bunk
> Baron and Prince of Pratfalls, and while some people can catch his bad
> dope easily others my confuse it for knowledge, and that is a great
> disservice. That's why I regularly list his howlers so that people
> learn to distrust him if they have not already.
>
> With Google at the the same fingertips that type posts, there is no
> excuse today for not doing at least a modicum of checking up on facts
> before posting and protect claims against the most obvious
> rebuttals. Ignorance and laziness not a good poster make.
>
> Do you shoot?
Strange as it may sound, I don't (last time was something like 3
decades ago and only as a target practice). As I tried to explain ADR
(with zero success, judging by his reaction), while I don't have
firearms, I consider the right to have them as a very important one.
Not because it may help against the "Evil Goverment" but because I
don't think that limiting this (and many other) rights is goverment's
business. Following ADR's criteria, individual protest against
goverment's actions will not, most probably, bring any positive
practical results so why bother with the freedom fo speech as well?
Tiglath
We all make mistakes.
Time to pack, pal.
Martin Edwards
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
am...@hotmail.com
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > In article <5140ce07-225d-43fa-84a9-
> > says...
> >> On Nov 10, 7:36=A0am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Or to ride armed by night or day, in fairs, markets...
>
> >>> When you read the law, you have to read all of it. =A0Europeans are bred
> >>> to be serfs. =A0It's why armies have been able to dominate vastly larger
> >>> populations in Europe throughout history.
>
> >> Hmmmm...silly, insulting and chauvinist statements, ridiculous in
> >> their core. But in any case, we would love to hear which particular
> >> rebellion has been successful in the US in which the federal
> >> government was challenged militarily. Let's find out what section of
> >> the US has not been dominated by the army or state organs.
>
> > The last military invasion of the US was in August of 1814, and many of
> > the enemy troops were Indians.
>
> That'll be a shock to Pancho Villa and his boys...
Pancho raided the US territory but he did not plan to coinquer any
piece of it or even to stay on it for any protracted period of time
(IIRC, the whole issue was about a cheating merchant who did not
deliver weapons for which Pancho paid) so it can be argued that this
example does not qualify any more than any other bandit raid across
the border. But otherwise you are most probably right.
:-)
Tiglath
Good point.
It's not easy to explain a screw to a hammer.
MA is one of those 10-states, where you cannot have a magazine with
more than ten rounds. Another inanity; it takes just seconds to slap
in a new magazine in today's good pistols, and you can have a bagful
of them apparently. The thought of Introducing a momentary delay in
the shooter's shooting spree must have a calming effect on the
liberal's mind.