PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

that reminds me on an episode as a young hitch-hiker in Italy, stuck in the middle of nowhere south from Naples - 4 a.m, the village peaceful sleeping, I peek 2 impressive dogs a bit down the street. A metallic noise, ahh, no problem, both are on a chain ... well, but why do they keep moving into my direction ? yeah, each dog is on a chain, but the chains aren't fixed anywhere, the dogs walking their chains, so to say ...

picture this as a high moon scenario before dawn, me in the middle of the street, continuing my way, the dogs approaching me, one on the left the other on the right half of the street...
Fighting panic (never reveal a sign of insecureness to a supposedly dangerous dog) as good as it gets, I open the extra-sharp knife in my pocket, think 'ok boys - it's you or me' and pass right between them, slow but firmly walking on my line as if nothing particular was happening.

that knife gave me some authority and I hold any bet the 2 dogs where quite aware of my determination, though my objective chances would have been pretty bad if they had attacked as a team...

anyway, there are enough guns in Germany, licensed or illegal - become member of a sport shooting club and you'll get one.
Of course you risk severe legal threats, but you'd carry that thing around for (personally) even more severe reasons, so people usually ignore it anyway.
'Tom, you'd been amazed how many Germans have a shotgun in their trunk' was a comment by a British officer (they used to carefully check workers' cars entering military area, due to IRA bomb threatening those years)

When they sell gun safes in supermarkets, you can estimate the number of weapons around.

People are people and far from perfect, a driving license doesn't save anyone from idiots on the road, as a gun owner license won't save anyone from a psycho (of whatever kind)

cheers, Tom

garyb wrote:
the simpsons is funny!
the simpsons is new world order propaganda, although later in the episode, marge finds she loves the gun after she foils a qwikee mart robbery...

DOH! - I forgot about the ending of that episode...

Well - it is a fox show, I guess they gotta keep the balance somehow

the thread's subject as it turned out to be was the ultimate condition for a real Planetz tribal war.
Yet this didn't occur.
We ended with the Simpsons, bah.
What a boring community we are !

it is indeed a bit too soft since, since... you know what I mean

I’m sorry to learn your brother was aggressed like this Brain, I imagine he passed away being quite young, as this happens many years ago. Obviously, your perspective must be quite different from the others, because when “reality” baths us with its own water, the perception of life is different.

Here in Chile, we have lately been experiencing that people “build” their own guns, which are made in a very rudimentary way, to commit their crimes. The main problem is held by young people of around 14 to 17 years. There is an added big problem to it, and it is the age of those offenders, because the law cannot prosecute them till they have 18, and they can prosecute them only, if they did it when they were “18”. Now, due to many problems caused by this strange law, the government has proposed some drastic changes to come in a few months, and youngsters will be charged from 14 years old and up, for their crimes. Of course, the law will not be as hard with them as with adults, but it will be an important restriction to their behaviour.

I insist in saying that the problem of guns as everything else in our societies around the world, is an INNER problem, and that mankind is psychologically ill.

braincell wrote:It's like the death penalty for burglary . I would not say you are a non-violent person!


Liquid Len wrote:
Hey!
This is gonna piss some people off. I'm a nonviolent person myself, never owned a gun, hope never to live where I need to. But if you told me you shot and killed a burglar, I probably would thank you because there's one less a-hole to break into MY house, now. .

You're probably right. However, the overwhelming criticism of me over the years has certainly been that I'm not violent ENOUGH, so I take your comments with a different perspective. You would be amazed to know how much I have 'turned the other cheek' literally. To make me mad enough to fight, just coming up to me and sucker-punching doesn't do it - maybe I intellectualize too much. In only one case have I ever been *somewhat* violent (didn't even draw blood)- someone who was picking on me for a year and really made me angry, not just some drunk idiot in a bar who didn't even know me, and therefore could not really bother me.

I sympathize with your loss and your resultant perspective on the world - on my part I have seen people who were hurt in a variety of ways by lawless and selfish people. Maybe it's going to far to say I would be GLAD to know someone was shot during a burglary - but I wouldn't have much pity either. I'd save my pity for the elderly couple who will never sleep soundly at night again, due to no fault of their own.

I think the problem is not guns but the culture of guns. If our culture had swords at its heart, and every house had 'decorative' swords hanging above every doorway - there would be MORE stabbings, not less, I'm sure. But if you could somehow remove all the swords from all the houses, the mentality of using them would still be in people's minds. This is just an opinion, but I think the reason Europe has discarded their guns is because they've already had a few centuries of astounding bloodletting and wars, and by now realize the next war will just hurt them, no matter how it pads their 'national ego'. Time will tell if GaryB is right in perceiving the current state (of Europe) as more or less 'the calm before the storm'. Either way, the only kind of solution I can see is better education, and not just the job-training that passes for education these days.

Nestor wrote:I insist in saying that the problem of guns as everything else in our societies around the world, is an INNER problem, and that mankind is psychologically ill.

If this was true the differences in violence around the world and inside nations cannot be clarified, as the spread of styles and methods of violence as found in the statistics simply isn't consciously pursued by individuals.

Differences are a result of statistical summing of individual behaviour, and therefor a sociological fact.
This isn't only academicly true, it also has consequences for the methods to fight violence.

By changing sociological conditions you can change violence patterns, isn't that great?
Or would you send every criminal to a psychiatrist to work on his inner problem, to solve the social problem?
If this could work out well for individuals, it won't for the source of the problems.
Ten other criminals are ready to fill the gap of the recovered one, when social conditions stayed the same.

This is quite obvious, a totally accepted point of view for any social or even psychological scientist or policy maker in an modern industrial society.
Can't help Nes

shoot the policy makers and maybe humans can get down to living a reasonable life in their own communities. hang the centralizers of power and the wars will cease.......

who are the policy makers, for example who planned the eu? well, that would be mainly beatrix and her beau with the rothschilds, british royals, harold and the other bilderbergers. they work with american groups that are led by the rockefellors(who open brag about funding the russian and chinese communist revolution. they like police states by their own admission) such as the cfr and trilateral commision. add to this the club of rome and you start to get an idea. this is not a "theory", it's a fact based on policy papers. the people in government who are called "policy makers" are just middle management who are given parameters and must figure out a way to implement.

what short-sightedness and short memories demonstrated by what goes as reality these days......

these real policy makers have openly called for a reduction in population to 500,000,000! this means 6 BILLION or so must perish......that will include many nice people from europe who live in a very cultured and civilized manor and never get violent any more......don't believe me? doesn't matter. start investigating the un's agenda 21. a plan that sounds really good if you only read the summary.....

Gary, i read the same stuff you do - i assume you've read David Icke? It seems odd to me that we have this in common yet come to completely different conclusions regarding guns. If we lay down our weapons the Illuminati (or whatever you want to call the almighty powers that be) have no control over us anymore - remember Ghandi's Satyagraha and how that worked through non-violence? That's what we need to do, not arm everyone to the teeth which just plays into the Illuminati's hands - guns and war are a very efficient depopulater (if there is such a word). War is hygiene.

Gary your opinions strike me as very radical, and you seem to be against any kind of organized political system. Are you an anarchist in its positive meaning?

Some thoughts, triggered by Gary where he speaks about Europe, nobility elites and democracy, from my national perspective then
you might find it interesting, -or not

Europe started with the EGKS, an economic cooperation model for ruling the production of coal and steel, to aspire the rebuild of all European countries.
It was a conscious try to force the nations to work together, as sharing markets was seen as the best way to avoid national wars.

The general idea behind Europa really was simply no war anymore.
youngsters are not always aware of that fact, or even don't wanne know.
Yet, the Kosovar 'war' was shocking to see on tellie for us Europeans.
It was considered as something third-world like, like in Africa or something.
(Europe was weak in action, sure, don't forget we are just 60 years young and still expanding).

Often it's said by Americans that it was thanks to the American soldiers Europe got rid of the Nazis.
Letting alone the immense role of the USSR in that result, this is true.
Aren't you glad then that Europe took it's responsibility and created a basic structure to make war actually impossible or self destructive?

The Bilderberg group started with a huge conflict between European and American members.
America at that time still was in the ban of McArty's communists hunt, while at the same time communists parties and pacifistic tendencies were very popular in Europe in those days.
Specially Italy and France were said to be much too tolerant to communists, the Americans couldn't understand why we didn't forbid the c. parties.
(btw, you know of course the communists were the most fanatic resistence group in Nazi Germany).
Our own Queen Juliana, the mother of Beatrice, wrote history in the fifties with her famous speech in what conference was it again (UN?), appealing for radical pacefistic political strategies.

Beatrice indeed is always on the Bilderberg list, but you shouldn't take here presence so seriously.
In our constitutional structure she, as a queen, has a more and more social cohesive role, without any real power or real relations to multinationals imho (financial investments maybe, dunno).

Her only power is that formally she can refuse the constitutionaly done proposal to her, after elections, namely which parties should start conferences to form a new gouvernment.

From the other side, a real political danger could rise when she or another member of the royal family makes a public statement that isn't in line with the official gouvernment opinion.

This happend e (very) few times, most known is the Lockheed affaire around prince Bernhard, father of Beatrix, in the seventies.
The always-responsible ministers have to resign in such a situation, and Beatrix has shown to be a master in avoiding political troubles, she seems to be very well informed anyway, nationally and internationally.

That declares the popularity of the 'Kingdom' we have, it doesn't matter really, it's folklore, it is symbolic, and can only be understood if you know where this strange and somehow archaic marriage between kingdom and democracy comes from.

Don't wanne sound pedantic, you guys know all this probably.
But both the two social ruling classes deep back in the 19th century decided to choose for a deliberating approach.
The old and dying nobility, associated with the kingdoms, and the new citizens who got rich and powerfull in the society's field made a deal.
The French Revolution had made clear that you couldn't keep the new citizen away from the political power, so it had to be.

In Holland, the King could stay on the throne, but the government of (selected) citizens aquired all political responsability.
Kind of condemnation to each other, but the King started to focus on national renewing projects like railroad infrastructures and creating good trading conditions.
(It took a few years for the parlement to find it's way, but after 1867 things started to work, see later).
Stupid prince Bernhard tried to copy that role a bit too hard, later, and got pushed back hard away from all public activities and privileges

So, there's Beatrix, humanized and popular.

In times of glabalisation and immigration conflicts people tend to embrass the few elements that seem to be 'typical us'.
That's national soccer, and that's the royal family

Not the republicans 'lost the struggle' so much, it are the nation's sentiments that got the overhand, which doesn't harm anybody.
Next monday we celebrate her birthday, it's a real 'volksfest', with music festivals, a lot of street activities, etc.
The march-past for Juliana and family on the palace steps are history since Beatrix (almost 30 years).
The whole royal family comes to 'us', in the streets, takes part in a few street games, listens to and more of that kind of friendly stupidiness
One car bomb on the right spot and we are a republic by definition...

Yet, any 'divine devotion' on that day is absent, it's quite relaxed actually.
Even the most leftwing Socialistic Party, which started as Maoistic action party 30 years ago, officially left the republican idea.
Not alone for opportunistic reasons (gouvernmental availibility, getting close in the meanwhile), but also for the above practical considerations: if the people like it, why would a 'socialist wanne know better'.

Already speaking, so: there's another arguement to let the situation as is.
The political role of the King (Queen) is constitutionally determinated.
To change that you'd need 2/3 majority (which is good).
The discussion would dominate the national news for years, as the medea would pick up every word said by anyone.
It would split up our nation in two camps, without any, any real societal subject of importance.
There's more and better to do, that's the general convention about this subject, even at the socialists.

The first law in Holland (restricting industrial patrones in hiring children for work) came across in 1867, known as the Childs Law by Van Houten, and only England as most industrial nation preceded us in social legislation, imho.
In a try to avert the feared total class struggle as (wrongly) predicted by Karl Marx 20 years before, the right wing of the parliament capitulated and a majority was found.
'King Trader' Willem II in the meanwhile did his job

Analysis goes, after all we finally found a way to co-exist together, with Protestants, Catholics, Bible fanatics, hague speechers, and other criminals, and now the next king and protestant prince Willem Alexander has marriaged smylie Katholic Maxima, daughter of a political criminal, and even that got diplomaticly worked around without publicly denying that fact

If we have to discuss a thing in Holland, then it's not the constitutional position of the king(dom), we better could try to concentrate on democratic control of all politics makers on all levels.
You seem to have lost any confidence in that, which is a pity specially if it'd be true overthere.
Let's support Kasparov!

well Mr Arkadin, i agree with that in principle. the ghandi thing only works as long as there is public perception to be influenced and won. i agree that war is a culling process for sure, but when only the "authorities" are armed, you get concentration camps not sympathy. google halliburton, kellog, brown and root(the halliburton company that was involved in the building and operation of the nazi camps) and camps(the three things together) and see what's being built in america. hey, besides halliburton, who else was involved in building death camps? why big blue themselves, IBM. they made the computers(mechanical) and numbering system(tattoos) for the nazi death camps, which were not nesessarily for jews, but were for homosexuals, gypsies, cripples, intellectuals and retarded folk as well, basically any member of german society that could be marginalized. those camps were the successful test program, following major gun control legislation, the same as lenin9killed millions, pol pot(ditto) and many others....

nah, i'm not too into icke, though. there are many things that are too hard to prove there. there's more than enough proof of collusion without shapeshifting. i have no doubt that there's plenty of truth in many of his assertations, though. the rights of freemasonry speak of such things(the family line of cain and all that rot and drivel)....

yes, hubird, beatrix is a lovely person running dutch royal shell.

royals don't express their power directly, but they weild it behind the scenes as much if ever. i don't think you realize who owns the controlling interests in the largest multinational corps(corporations were a royal invention to keep the heat off the true source of power, elizabeth perfected the technique with the "privateers". later the british and dutch east indies companies were exploited. the english, dutch, german, russian, danish, norwegian, swedish, greek, belgian, french and monaco royal families and most of the highest level usa politicians(bush, kerry, cheney, roosevelt,and powell) are blood kin, usually first cousins. it's all in the family and it was decided a long time ago, that weilding political power was too much trouble. better to allow the idea of self rule and running the politicians, that way if unpopular things need to be done, the people won't blame their true rulers...

believe it or not, Karl Marx was a Rockefellor employee. Bush's neocons are disciples of Leo Strauss, a trotskeyite. a chinese official was once quoted as saying "communism is the ultimate expression of capitalism". things are not always what they seem. your story is a nice story, it's just not really true at the highest levels.

petal-no i'm not specifically an anarchist, though i do like the idea of personal responsibility and sovereignity. i'm american, messed up by my time in america.... i'm not against organized governments, i think we need them. it's suicidal to TRUST them, though. they always need to be crippled and cut back, before their power becomes too great and becomes odious. at that point, they're like a bad weed in your garden, hard to get rid of without killing the whole garden.

How would you structure a country/society like the US then? asuming that some kind of structuring and organisation was allowed in your oppinoin.

garyb wrote:when only the "authorities" are armed, you get concentration camps not sympathy

Hm, you need two conditions at the same time to be fullfilled for any government.
It was the red thread through-out my (too) long stories.

The political deal is;
ok government, you get the only right to organize institutional violence (police and army), but we get total democratic control by the parliament.
Recently, after an independent investory, two ministers had to resign, politically held responsible for the death of 11 immigrant prisonners at Schiphol haven.
Almost the government itself had to go home.
Another condemnation of the former government is on it's way, as never was admitted that we got involved in the Iraqi war on the wrong reasons (even Bush did).
They can't stop that investory come

I'm not trying to show off about anything, I just wanne emphasize that democratic control should be given before surrendering the violence monopoly to the government.
If that lacks, there you have your problem.
It was exactly what Hitler made big, lack of control.
A constitution of parliamentary democracy that can't be changed without 2/3 majority is all we have.
There's no system that has been proven any better.
If it doesn't work, the system is sick

petal wrote:How would you structure a country/society like the US then? asuming that some kind of structuring and organisation was allowed in your oppinoin.

the current us regime is unconstitutional. the constitution would work if it was followed. of course, that requires an informed populace, who know how to run their own lives....

but doesn't the constitution allow big companies like Microsoft, IBM, HP, GM etc to develop and prosper. Companies which inner principle is to strive for the biggest profit possible and therefore monopoly or monopolistic condistions, which in the end leads to a new "priviledged" class?

Assuming I'm right, isn't the constitution flawed by default then?

no, it doesn't allow any of those things. you are describing corruption. those situations occur because of favorable government intervention and official monopolies. also, the new "priviledged" class is really just the upper end of the middle class. the only real additions to the ruling families(who always marry amongst themselves) are the ruler's bankers like the Rothschilds who have been allowed to marry into royalty(and are the result of the "new" monarchs' new liberal policy about marrying commoners)....
ibm isn't even truly an american corp. it's multinational and owned by europe's royalty(just like the other huge ones). as i said, ibm is the company that made the numbering system and mechanical computers to go with them for hitler's camps. the Nazis and the multinationals and the Rothschilds and the IMF and the british monarchy and Harold and Beatrix are the same entities....
remember the deposed king george of england supported hitler as did prescott bush?

anyway, political struggle is about the balance between freedom and tyranny. there is no left or right, that's all bs.

beatrix was asked to be on every stamp...lick my ass, she said, and so we do, up to today, nation wide