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

RE: [steiner] Re: Politics

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    ******* As is usual with liberals who think their opinions are fact and there is only one Politically Correct point of view, this is no history lesson as any
    Message 1 of 41 , Jun 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      ******* As is usual with liberals who think their opinions are fact and
      there is only one Politically Correct point of view, this is no "history
      lesson" as any history teacher (or polisci teacher) would inform you, but a
      polemic merely expressing your opinion. But it shows why liberals can't
      communicate, why they lose elections and so depend on unelected judges to
      force their opinions on the unwashed masses for whom they have only
      contempt.

      I am quite happy that not only the police are armed. If Virginia Tech
      students were armed, more would be alive, since one of them would have taken
      out that murdering Korean before he had the chance to kill so many. A
      disarmed populace is a docile one, as in the Polish Ghetto... or in LA,
      where only the Oriental shop owners who were armed didn't have their shops
      destroyed in the black racist riots after the Rodney King trial, when police
      were unable to protect them.

      Fortunately, your opinion can be disregarded as it has not a chance of
      ever becoming law in the US any more than in Switzerland----which is why no
      tyrants determining what's right for everyone will ever take over here (or
      there), unlike Cuba, North Korea, and every dictatorship where no one is
      allowed to be armed except the State.

      Starman

      www.DrStarman.com





      >From: "Stephen Hale" <sardisian01@...>
      >Reply-To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      >To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [steiner] Re: Politics
      >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:24:54 -0000
      >
      >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>
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      PC Magazine�s 2007 editors� choice for best Web mail�award-winning Windows
      Live Hotmail.
      http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
    • 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.