Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Politics

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Hale
    Starman, let me give you a history lesson. First principle: What was good and necessary in the past in order to achieve the freedom of America is duly
    Message 1 of 41 , Jun 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Starman, let me give you a history lesson. First principle: What
      was good and necessary in the past in order to achieve the freedom
      of America is duly recognized by all. The second amendment to the
      U.S. Constitution upholds this due recognition, which has had to be
      utilized, albeit in ever diminishing fashion since the American
      Revolution. Back then, though, it was the unpaid service of freedom
      fighting civilians called "Minutemen" that had to ensure their
      powder was kept dry in order to win the war against the British and
      French flags. Without them, the powdered wigs of the founders and
      their glorious signatures on the Declaration of Independence, Bill
      of Rights, and Constitution wouldn't have been worth the powder to
      blow them to hell.

      But, that was then and this is now. In today's world, guns are used
      to kill people and commit crimes, and they are easily obtained
      without government interference. Thus, the Second Principle is: Get
      real when it comes to the violence caused by these little weapons of
      mass destruction, because they inflict harm. And the paradox is
      that they get to be legally possessed by those who threaten and
      destroy freedom, rather than give it.

      And it doesn't matter anymore whether the powder is wet or dry;
      just that the second amendment to the constituton exists.

      Steve

      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman" <DrStarman@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >So, what does free ownership of guns mean? Don't we have enough
      of
      > >those nasty things without free ownership?
      >
      > ******* 'Free' means not impeded by the government. You have
      freedom of
      > speech and of the press here in the US you loathe and regard as
      the source
      > of all evil, because your ancestors took up 'those nasty things'
      against
      > those using "government" as a way to oppress and rule everyone.
      When Hitler
      > wanted to massacre the Jews, he first forbid them to carry arms.
      In the
      > Polish ghetto, they got hold of some, and the SS fled till they
      could come
      > back with superior weaponry; if Jews had retained arms th
      Holocaust could
      > never have happened. When Stalin wanted to start reducing the
      Baltic States
      > to total submission, he likewise first had the men come to a spot
      in every
      > village and turn in their guns. No tyrant can master an armed
      populace.
      > It would never have been imagined by the Founding Fathers, who
      got their
      > idea of the Minutemen from the Swiss Confederacy, that a free
      people would
      > not have the absolute right to have firearms. That Swiss tradition
      of every
      > adult male having working firearms and knowing how to us them, by
      the way,
      > was the reason they alone of all Europe were not engulfed by the
      Nazis. (The
      > Swiss national pasttime is sharphooting.)

      <snip>
    • saggitar4swas
      What does the possession of a guns do to the soul of the possessor? In the case of the Swiss (who do military service - & only those who do hold weapons) is
      Message 41 of 41 , Jun 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        What does the possession of a guns do to the soul of the possessor? In
        the case of the Swiss (who do military service - & only those who do
        hold weapons) is seems to add to their self-possession (nationally not
        always individually). The context seems important there. Canadians too
        seem (with a few rare exceptions able to manage the ownership of
        rifles - primarily for hunting). As for Iraq -

        > As we're learning now in Iraq, a well-armed militia filled with
        > patriots willing to kill and die for their nation is impossible to
        > rule over.

        The "free people of Iraq" as an example to all those who feel that free
        access to machines made for the sole purpose of killing might not be a
        good idea? Really, Matthew?

        And if guns should be available to all free people, why not durgs?
        After all a completely doped population have no reason to worry about
        invasion, or anything else...Where does the abortion issue fit in with
        a perspective that seems to see readines to maim or kill others as a
        major contribution "free" societies?

        Guns, no guns? - all this seems more a matter of simple commonsense -
        the best & only basis for Anthroposophy - than spiritual science.


        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Mathew Morrell" <tma4cbt@...> wrote:
        >
        > So long as the average American is armed, as he now is, we are
        > unconquerable by invading powers, whether that power is China or the
        > UN.
        >
        > As we're learning now in Iraq, a well-armed militia filled with
        > patriots willing to kill and die for their nation is impossible to
        > rule over. Napoleon learned the same lesson when invading Russia.
        > The Brits learned this lesson in 1776. The next to learn are
        > liberals.
        >
        > This is why the One World Government wishes to disarm the US. People
        > like me and Starman will never bow down before false gods and their
        > Marxists priests.
        >
        > Long live freedom and democracy! Long live the Republic!
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.