Here's the 8chan thread on the incident, probably gets shoad soon, like the original post (archived) some hours before the shooting.Originally Posted by Astragoth
https://8ch.net/pol/res/13561409.html
Here's the 8chan thread on the incident, probably gets shoad soon, like the original post (archived) some hours before the shooting.
https://8ch.net/pol/res/13561409.html
Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit
I haven't yet checked up on the usual false flag theorists, but I agree. The lack of resistance speaks volumes, contradicting his fatalistic claims of expecting to be a martyr. Just like the previous incident.
Once again, no mention of the Jewish question. Manifestos are always risky business. "Fellow Americans" His definition of "American" is vague. At this point, it's better to think of Americans as one unified race. In the case of assimilated Europeans, they are nomads. In the case of assimilated Germans, they are no longer German.
If people who come out openly as former Nazis and admit their mistakes to the press get the ignore treatment (I have the impression that they're not so much really interested in hearing them out as they are in pushing their own narrative), why do the radical ones think they'll be heard?
His reasons for opposing race mixing leaves much room to be desired. Only about two sentences on the subject before he rails on about diversity. That he stresses immigration over race mixing is significant; he is a full-fledged reactionary if not a subversive.
I recently read that Goethe vehemently rejected all violent and forceful means of revolution. He believed it would do more harm than good in the long run. He said it was better to commit an injustice than tolerate disorder; this was a view similar to Hitler's IMO, about maintaining the balance between idealists and criminals and the restoration of order for the whole of social life, even if it meant using underhanded means. Was Goethe a pacifist? This view actually stemmed from his view of nature and it's certain that the voice of the blood was with him in his protest against the hasty emancipation of Jews.
I'm well aware that rights to own a gun is the most important ''right'' to many Americans.
For us those are 1.) free election, 2.) free school/education system, 3.) free healthy care system.
But how about limits it a bit? At least that person (who tries to buy a one)...
1.) should prove that he/she is mentally healthy person (and not one kind of walking time bomb)? Short interview with doctors?
2.) has no earlier criminal records behind (and I don't mean over speeds penalties or parkings penalties now).
Plus individual persons would not be allowed to sell their guns further (gun being someway marked to you).
Only shops would sell guns.
Plus plus nation would destroy all ''illegal guns'' they would face/catch (maybe some states do that? ... no idea)
Free, free, free. That's what the Democrats/Socialists in our Government promise. And just who pays for 'free'? Free isn't free. The rest of us pay for those freebies.
American by birth, made of parts from Emmingen, Baden-Württemberg.
Der Familie Rentz seit 1535 - Meine Ehre heißt Treue
Das Leben ist zu kurz, um billiges Bier zu trinken!
Even free election? Multi political parties (and multi candidates for presidents etc .... for whole citizens/people to choose)? I know ... nation (= tax payers) pays/costs even free elections ... and worse would be without (organized ones like in Russia, Chine etc.)
Ok, lets put others ... systems created & money used ways ... getting more vs total costs.
But the issue was more about the gun laws...
The right to bear arms is not the most important right, free speech is. The Second Amendment ( right to bears ) is important only in the fact that it gives people the ability to protect people from our government when they try take away our other rights.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows:But how about limits it a bit? At least that person (who tries to buy a one)...
1.) should prove that he/she is mentally healthy person (and not one kind of walking time bomb)? Short interview with doctors?
2.) has no earlier criminal records behind (and I don't mean over speeds penalties or parkings penalties now).
Plus individual persons would not be allowed to sell their guns further (gun being someway marked to you).
Only shops would sell guns.
The two parts that I put in bold should explain why guns and gun sales should not be restricted. A few days ago I posted why I am pissed off in a thread about going to see a doctor at the veterans hospital and the questions they ask prior to seeing doctor. Now with the Affordable Care Act (Obama care), you have to answer questions like "do you feel like harming yourself and others". These questions are put in place for no reason other than to disarm as many people as they can. You have to seriously ask yourself "why does my government want to disarm it's people?", when statistics have proven time and time again that areas with less gun restrictions have less crime, The only answer is the government is afraid, no very afraid of the people rising up against it.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Most states they leave that up to the judge in a court case. Besides, there should be no "illegal" guns as to the last four word of the amendment.Plus plus nation would destroy all ''illegal guns'' they would face/catch (maybe some states do that? ... no idea)
Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.
When you remove the non white areas of America the crime rate is about that of Belgium. America doesn't have a gun crime problem. It has a black problem.
Do you think that you could fight against your system/leaders (military, polices, national guards ... what ever you have) with individual peoples weapons? USA military is strongest in the world. I'm afraid .... the only real question would be: Would your own trained soldiers agreed to fight (use force) against your own people .... if your leaders would ask that one day ... or not. Nope, I'm afraid ... the civil weapons have no role on that kind of game.
Probable so ... but can you (= USA as a country) do that? Being totally realistic now? As it has become worse and worse ... and soon (maybe already today?) you will not have enough numbers to do that either ... even if you would want that.
We are starting to veer off topic, but I think it's still relevant. I have to answer this in two parts as it is a two part question.
The first part about citizens with small arms vs the military/police/government. If you look at history over 60 years every time the US military has been engaged in conflict it is individuals with small arms that bogged down the US military machine, particularly in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Never underestimate what one man can do with a loaded rifle, besides there are hundreds of thousands if not millions armed and trained combat veterans like me willing to train others. As a Soldier/Guerrilla fighter the number one rule to remember is your enemy always provides you with everything needed to defeat them.
The second part about US soldiers and police defecting and joining sides with armed revolt I think it depends on who is revolting. If it is people wanting to restore our rules of law and order then I think many would defect, especially police and frontline combat troops. If it is the leftist trying to disrupt our laws and force their views on us, then no the police and military would not defect.
Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks