How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[zaangalewa]

... Still stuck in the past because you can not deal with your incompetent present

Who not knows the past knows nothing. And you are by the way far from anything what people in 'ancient' times had called "character" and very near to this what they had called "cobold". But cobolds are friendly people compared with you.

 

[esalla]

your ignorance is based on the ethos of your people.

Which ethos?

You simply do not LEARN about it.

About what?

The fanatic anti-semitism of the Nazis was no different from that of the Catholic Church and the founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther------which was no different from the antisemitism of other Emperor, the of the first Reich-----Constantine.

Shorter: Hitler was able to wake the emotional background the antjudaism of protestants like Luther (14xx-15xx) or Catholics like Agustinus (3xx-4xx). I used this two famous names of very important men, because they thought they had found the holy gral of the very best theology, which is possible at all - and Jews laughed only about the nonsense they said. And let me say: It was for sure a totally stupid nonsense what they said about Jews. Both men were foaming with rage - but only with words and not with deeds as far as I know.

Nevertheless their words (and also the anti-Judaistic words of others) had consequences. By the way: anti-Semitism is hate on Jews because of biology (materialism) - anti-Judaism is hate on Jews because of religion (spirituality). No need to say that for all forms of real spirituality hate is absolutelly counterproductive. But - and this "but" is importnat to know - hate is not really an emotion. If someone is angry than this means not that he is full of hate for example. If someone is angry then he speaks often a damend bullshit. Anger is a bad counsellor.

And I don't understand now why you call Constantine an anti-Semite. In the year 321 for example Constantine informed the city of Cologne that Jews are able to hold every public position. The Jews were citizens of Rome ... indeed all Jews are still today citizens of Rome. Rome exists not any longer, that's all. But this was also a fact in the holy empire. The Jews were always directly under the shield of the emperor.

And if you take a look at the crown of the emperors of the holy empire then you will see that they felt not only to be in the tradition of Rome - they felt also to be in the tradition of Israel.

The Hungarian-Austrian empire is INDEED known historically as the second

Reich---

Never heard any German or Austrian say so. Hitlers expression "Drittes Reich" (third empire) used only a nearly forgoten mythos of a Germany (=a union) which once was much greater and much more stable. Today an empty phrase like "Make the USA great again" is very similar.

The emperors in Vienna were in the last centuries up to the year 1806 the emperors of the holy empire. But Austria and its allies were not able to win in a war against Napoleon. The French army was gigantic and they were able to produce chemical material which was necessary for shooting of muzzle loaders and canons in a chemical industrialzed form - while Austria and others had only a slow and low production of this chemical substance in an agricultural way of production.

The conflict between his duty to have to defend the holy empire and the impossibility to defend it solved the last emperor of the holy empire with an illegal action: He had shut down the holy empire. No one protested. The empire was past. Requiescat in pace.

one of its emperors, FRANZ JOSEF, an adherent of THE ENLIGHTENMENT is as illustrious

a character in jewish ethos as is the Persian King, Cyrus. He was a good guy-----a legend even in my own family.

There are much more legends. When I like to know whether a partner in a conversation knows really something about history then I ask him for example why Bernhard von Clairvaux - the propagator of the second crusade - was such a cruel anti-Semite. The answer is in most cases something what has to do with hate against holy church. But Bernhard was indeed a friend of the Jews. Later sometimes Jews honored him by calling their own children "Bernhard".

And why do I say this to you now? To show to you that history is much more complex and much more colorful than you think.

Your claim of "equal citizenship" is HILARIOUS.

In Prussia (="Germany") became in 1812 every Jew a citizen of Prussia. In 1847 Jews got the right to get a religious education in public schools, they had the right to travel everywhere and to seddle down everywhere and to do any job they liked to do. Only exception in the state were jobs which had to do with jurisdiction or executive powers like police. 1869 followed the complete equal treatment in Prussia. Two years before in 1867 this had happened in Austria-Hungaria. (In 1862 in Baden)

Vestiges of the CANON/NUREMBURG laws are memorialized in the mode of dress of the CHASSIDIC JEWS.

Thats absolutelly not comparable. In the middle ages existed dress codes for everyone and everything. You can see this very nice in Great Britain today for example.

The problem which the Nazi had was to use racism in combination with Jews, because Jews were in reality Germans like all others. No one was able to see who was a Jew or not. Their racial discrimination was bullshit - but instead to accept this they used markers: The names Israel and Sarah in passports and the very famous yellow star of David.

You may have not noticed---Their long coats do not have a pleat in the back. The pleat was placed in the back in order to accomodate a man when he sits astride a horse- Now give that fact some thought-----it is very interesting.

Why? Perhaps they used another clothing if they travelled. Perhaps it was directly forbidden to use a horse. Perhaps ...

More information---under FRANZ JOSEF my greatgrandfather had an actual job in the army that was not a 20 year FORCED stint----a very unusual

As far as I know this was not unusual. Many Jews were in the army

situation for a JEW at that time----the ENLIGHTENMENT (PS --if you have not figured it out yet HORSES were considered instruments of war and are illegal for jews under both Shariah and Canon law)

I don't know how to compare the Sharia and the Canon law. Although is existed laws in the church basing on the Justinian law of the year 533 (Roman law) it never existed a common law in the catholic world. This process of only one common law is very young. It exists a CIC from the year 1917 and now exists the CIC of the year 1983. All laws of the church for the church are in this book, as far as I know. But this means nothing in case of god. No one gives god rules or gives rules to his chosen people.

And if you should think in the Catholic religion exists a rule like "all Catholics go to heaven - all others not" or a rule like "make the life on planet Earth to a hell for all Jews" then you are wrong.

What is your point?

In 3 million words or less

 

[zaangalewa]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

 

[esalla]

... Still stuck in the past because you can not deal with your incompetent present

Who not knows the past knows nothing. And you are by the way far from anything what people in 'ancient' times had called "character" and very near to this what they had called "cobold". But cobolds are friendly people compared with you.

I prefer knowing how the fed is going to change interest rates in the future so I can purchase the right bonds at the right time.

You stay there in the past and continue with the Vaseline thing

 

[esalla]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

 

[ding]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

No shit, comrade.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

It's a waste of time to speak with you.

 

[esalla]

your ignorance is based on the ethos of your people.

Which ethos?

You simply do not LEARN about it.

About what?

The fanatic anti-semitism of the Nazis was no different from that of the Catholic Church and the founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther------which was no different from the antisemitism of other Emperor, the of the first Reich-----Constantine.

Shorter: Hitler was able to wake the emotional background the antjudaism of protestants like Luther (14xx-15xx) or Catholics like Agustinus (3xx-4xx). I used this two famous names of very important men, because they thought they had found the holy gral of the very best theology, which is possible at all - and Jews laughed only about the nonsense they said. And let me say: It was for sure a totally stupid nonsense what they said about Jews. Both men were foaming with rage - but only with words and not with deeds as far as I know.

Nevertheless their words (and also the anti-Judaistic words of others) had consequences. By the way: anti-Semitism is hate on Jews because of biology (materialism) - anti-Judaism is hate on Jews because of religion (spirituality). No need to say that for all forms of real spirituality hate is absolutelly counterproductive. But - and this "but" is importnat to know - hate is not really an emotion. If someone is angry than this means not that he is full of hate for example. If someone is angry then he speaks often a damend bullshit. Anger is a bad counsellor.

And I don't understand now why you call Constantine an anti-Semite. In the year 321 for example Constantine informed the city of Cologne that Jews are able to hold every public position. The Jews were citizens of Rome ... indeed all Jews are still today citizens of Rome. Rome exists not any longer, that's all. But this was also a fact in the holy empire. The Jews were always directly under the shield of the emperor.

And if you take a look at the crown of the emperors of the holy empire then you will see that they felt not only to be in the tradition of Rome - they felt also to be in the tradition of Israel.

The Hungarian-Austrian empire is INDEED known historically as the second

Reich---

Never heard any German or Austrian say so. Hitlers expression "Drittes Reich" (third empire) used only a nearly forgoten mythos of a Germany (=a union) which once was much greater and much more stable. Today an empty phrase like "Make the USA great again" is very similar.

The emperors in Vienna were in the last centuries up to the year 1806 the emperors of the holy empire. But Austria and its allies were not able to win in a war against Napoleon. The French army was gigantic and they were able to produce chemical material which was necessary for shooting of muzzle loaders and canons in a chemical industrialzed form - while Austria and others had only a slow and low production of this chemical substance in an agricultural way of production.

The conflict between his duty to have to defend the holy empire and the impossibility to defend it solved the last emperor of the holy empire with an illegal action: He had shut down the holy empire. No one protested. The empire was past. Requiescat in pace.

one of its emperors, FRANZ JOSEF, an adherent of THE ENLIGHTENMENT is as illustrious

a character in jewish ethos as is the Persian King, Cyrus. He was a good guy-----a legend even in my own family.

There are much more legends. When I like to know whether a partner in a conversation knows really something about history then I ask him for example why Bernhard von Clairvaux - the propagator of the second crusade - was such a cruel anti-Semite. The answer is in most cases something what has to do with hate against holy church. But Bernhard was indeed a friend of the Jews. Later sometimes Jews honored him by calling their own children "Bernhard".

And why do I say this to you now? To show to you that history is much more complex and much more colorful than you think.

Your claim of "equal citizenship" is HILARIOUS.

In Prussia (="Germany") became in 1812 every Jew a citizen of Prussia. In 1847 Jews got the right to get a religious education in public schools, they had the right to travel everywhere and to seddle down everywhere and to do any job they liked to do. Only exception in the state were jobs which had to do with jurisdiction or executive powers like police. 1869 followed the complete equal treatment in Prussia. Two years before in 1867 this had happened in Austria-Hungaria. (In 1862 in Baden)

Vestiges of the CANON/NUREMBURG laws are memorialized in the mode of dress of the CHASSIDIC JEWS.

Thats absolutelly not comparable. In the middle ages existed dress codes for everyone and everything. You can see this very nice in Great Britain today for example.

The problem which the Nazi had was to use racism in combination with Jews, because Jews were in reality Germans like all others. No one was able to see who was a Jew or not. Their racial discrimination was bullshit - but instead to accept this they used markers: The names Israel and Sarah in passports and the very famous yellow star of David.

You may have not noticed---Their long coats do not have a pleat in the back. The pleat was placed in the back in order to accomodate a man when he sits astride a horse- Now give that fact some thought-----it is very interesting.

Why? Perhaps they used another clothing if they travelled. Perhaps it was directly forbidden to use a horse. Perhaps ...

More information---under FRANZ JOSEF my greatgrandfather had an actual job in the army that was not a 20 year FORCED stint----a very unusual

As far as I know this was not unusual. Many Jews were in the army

situation for a JEW at that time----the ENLIGHTENMENT (PS --if you have not figured it out yet HORSES were considered instruments of war and are illegal for jews under both Shariah and Canon law)

I don't know how to compare the Sharia and the Canon law. Although is existed laws in the church basing on the Justinian law of the year 533 (Roman law) it never existed a common law in the catholic world. This process of only one common law is very young. It exists a CIC from the year 1917 and now exists the CIC of the year 1983. All laws of the church for the church are in this book, as far as I know. But this means nothing in case of god. No one gives god rules or gives rules to his chosen people.

And if you should think in the Catholic religion exists a rule like "all Catholics go to heaven - all others not" or a rule like "make the life on planet Earth to a hell for all Jews" then you are wrong.

What is your point?

In 3 million words or less

Read what I write or let it be. Your problem.

You write novels because your word usage is inept reducing your ability to make a coherent point quickly.

 

[ding]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

no comment

It’s about time, comrade.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

No shit, comrade.

Eh? I have absolutelly nothing to do with you.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

no comment

It’s about time, comrade.

Since when is time a chamber?

 

[zaangalewa]

your ignorance is based on the ethos of your people.

Which ethos?

You simply do not LEARN about it.

About what?

The fanatic anti-semitism of the Nazis was no different from that of the Catholic Church and the founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther------which was no different from the antisemitism of other Emperor, the of the first Reich-----Constantine.

Shorter: Hitler was able to wake the emotional background the antjudaism of protestants like Luther (14xx-15xx) or Catholics like Agustinus (3xx-4xx). I used this two famous names of very important men, because they thought they had found the holy gral of the very best theology, which is possible at all - and Jews laughed only about the nonsense they said. And let me say: It was for sure a totally stupid nonsense what they said about Jews. Both men were foaming with rage - but only with words and not with deeds as far as I know.

Nevertheless their words (and also the anti-Judaistic words of others) had consequences. By the way: anti-Semitism is hate on Jews because of biology (materialism) - anti-Judaism is hate on Jews because of religion (spirituality). No need to say that for all forms of real spirituality hate is absolutelly counterproductive. But - and this "but" is importnat to know - hate is not really an emotion. If someone is angry than this means not that he is full of hate for example. If someone is angry then he speaks often a damend bullshit. Anger is a bad counsellor.

And I don't understand now why you call Constantine an anti-Semite. In the year 321 for example Constantine informed the city of Cologne that Jews are able to hold every public position. The Jews were citizens of Rome ... indeed all Jews are still today citizens of Rome. Rome exists not any longer, that's all. But this was also a fact in the holy empire. The Jews were always directly under the shield of the emperor.

And if you take a look at the crown of the emperors of the holy empire then you will see that they felt not only to be in the tradition of Rome - they felt also to be in the tradition of Israel.

The Hungarian-Austrian empire is INDEED known historically as the second

Reich---

Never heard any German or Austrian say so. Hitlers expression "Drittes Reich" (third empire) used only a nearly forgoten mythos of a Germany (=a union) which once was much greater and much more stable. Today an empty phrase like "Make the USA great again" is very similar.

The emperors in Vienna were in the last centuries up to the year 1806 the emperors of the holy empire. But Austria and its allies were not able to win in a war against Napoleon. The French army was gigantic and they were able to produce chemical material which was necessary for shooting of muzzle loaders and canons in a chemical industrialzed form - while Austria and others had only a slow and low production of this chemical substance in an agricultural way of production.

The conflict between his duty to have to defend the holy empire and the impossibility to defend it solved the last emperor of the holy empire with an illegal action: He had shut down the holy empire. No one protested. The empire was past. Requiescat in pace.

one of its emperors, FRANZ JOSEF, an adherent of THE ENLIGHTENMENT is as illustrious

a character in jewish ethos as is the Persian King, Cyrus. He was a good guy-----a legend even in my own family.

There are much more legends. When I like to know whether a partner in a conversation knows really something about history then I ask him for example why Bernhard von Clairvaux - the propagator of the second crusade - was such a cruel anti-Semite. The answer is in most cases something what has to do with hate against holy church. But Bernhard was indeed a friend of the Jews. Later sometimes Jews honored him by calling their own children "Bernhard".

And why do I say this to you now? To show to you that history is much more complex and much more colorful than you think.

Your claim of "equal citizenship" is HILARIOUS.

In Prussia (="Germany") became in 1812 every Jew a citizen of Prussia. In 1847 Jews got the right to get a religious education in public schools, they had the right to travel everywhere and to seddle down everywhere and to do any job they liked to do. Only exception in the state were jobs which had to do with jurisdiction or executive powers like police. 1869 followed the complete equal treatment in Prussia. Two years before in 1867 this had happened in Austria-Hungaria. (In 1862 in Baden)

Vestiges of the CANON/NUREMBURG laws are memorialized in the mode of dress of the CHASSIDIC JEWS.

Thats absolutelly not comparable. In the middle ages existed dress codes for everyone and everything. You can see this very nice in Great Britain today for example.

The problem which the Nazi had was to use racism in combination with Jews, because Jews were in reality Germans like all others. No one was able to see who was a Jew or not. Their racial discrimination was bullshit - but instead to accept this they used markers: The names Israel and Sarah in passports and the very famous yellow star of David.

You may have not noticed---Their long coats do not have a pleat in the back. The pleat was placed in the back in order to accomodate a man when he sits astride a horse- Now give that fact some thought-----it is very interesting.

Why? Perhaps they used another clothing if they travelled. Perhaps it was directly forbidden to use a horse. Perhaps ...

More information---under FRANZ JOSEF my greatgrandfather had an actual job in the army that was not a 20 year FORCED stint----a very unusual

As far as I know this was not unusual. Many Jews were in the army

situation for a JEW at that time----the ENLIGHTENMENT (PS --if you have not figured it out yet HORSES were considered instruments of war and are illegal for jews under both Shariah and Canon law)

I don't know how to compare the Sharia and the Canon law. Although is existed laws in the church basing on the Justinian law of the year 533 (Roman law) it never existed a common law in the catholic world. This process of only one common law is very young. It exists a CIC from the year 1917 and now exists the CIC of the year 1983. All laws of the church for the church are in this book, as far as I know. But this means nothing in case of god. No one gives god rules or gives rules to his chosen people.

And if you should think in the Catholic religion exists a rule like "all Catholics go to heaven - all others not" or a rule like "make the life on planet Earth to a hell for all Jews" then you are wrong.

What is your point?

In 3 million words or less

Read what I write or let it be. Your problem.

You write novels because your word usage is inept reducing your ability to make a coherent point quickly.

Again: Read what I write or let it be. Your problem.

 

[ding]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

No shit, comrade.

Eh? I have absolutelly nothing to do with you.

Except take beat downs from me, comrade.

 

[ding]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

no comment

It’s about time, comrade.

Since when is time a chamber?

Since I beat you over the head with it, comrade.

 

[Taz]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

no comment

It’s about time, comrade.

Since when is time a chamber?

Since I beat you over the head with it, comrade.

Go easy with zaan, he thinks he's a holocaust survivor. But secretly loves Nazis. Zaan, amirite or AMITITE?

 

[zaangalewa]

...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

?

I guess this is a part of the marketing strategy for the sales of private weapons and private war weapons, which had started in the 1970ies - about 200 years after the foundation of the USA.

You guess wrong, comrade.

I am not your comrade, idiot.

Then who's comrade are you?

no comment

It’s about time, comrade.

Since when is time a chamber?

Since I beat you over the head with it, comrade.

Go easy with zaan, he thinks he's a holocaust survivor. But secretly loves Nazis. Zaan, amirite or AMITITE?

Speak with god not with me, Nazi. Perhaps he will give you a new chance.

 

[zaangalewa]

your ignorance is based on the ethos of your people.

Which ethos?

You simply do not LEARN about it.

About what?

The fanatic anti-semitism of the Nazis was no different from that of the Catholic Church and the founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther------which was no different from the antisemitism of other Emperor, the of the first Reich-----Constantine.

Shorter: Hitler was able to wake the emotional background the antjudaism of protestants like Luther (14xx-15xx) or Catholics like Agustinus (3xx-4xx). I used this two famous names of very important men, because they thought they had found the holy gral of the very best theology, which is possible at all - and Jews laughed only about the nonsense they said. And let me say: It was for sure a totally stupid nonsense what they said about Jews. Both men were foaming with rage - but only with words and not with deeds as far as I know.

Nevertheless their words (and also the anti-Judaistic words of others) had consequences. By the way: anti-Semitism is hate on Jews because of biology (materialism) - anti-Judaism is hate on Jews because of religion (spirituality). No need to say that for all forms of real spirituality hate is absolutelly counterproductive. But - and this "but" is importnat to know - hate is not really an emotion. If someone is angry than this means not that he is full of hate for example. If someone is angry then he speaks often a damend bullshit. Anger is a bad counsellor.

And I don't understand now why you call Constantine an anti-Semite. In the year 321 for example Constantine informed the city of Cologne that Jews are able to hold every public position. The Jews were citizens of Rome ... indeed all Jews are still today citizens of Rome. Rome exists not any longer, that's all. But this was also a fact in the holy empire. The Jews were always directly under the shield of the emperor.

And if you take a look at the crown of the emperors of the holy empire then you will see that they felt not only to be in the tradition of Rome - they felt also to be in the tradition of Israel.

The Hungarian-Austrian empire is INDEED known historically as the second

Reich---

Never heard any German or Austrian say so. Hitlers expression "Drittes Reich" (third empire) used only a nearly forgoten mythos of a Germany (=a union) which once was much greater and much more stable. Today an empty phrase like "Make the USA great again" is very similar.

The emperors in Vienna were in the last centuries up to the year 1806 the emperors of the holy empire. But Austria and its allies were not able to win in a war against Napoleon. The French army was gigantic and they were able to produce chemical material which was necessary for shooting of muzzle loaders and canons in a chemical industrialzed form - while Austria and others had only a slow and low production of this chemical substance in an agricultural way of production.

The conflict between his duty to have to defend the holy empire and the impossibility to defend it solved the last emperor of the holy empire with an illegal action: He had shut down the holy empire. No one protested. The empire was past. Requiescat in pace.

one of its emperors, FRANZ JOSEF, an adherent of THE ENLIGHTENMENT is as illustrious

a character in jewish ethos as is the Persian King, Cyrus. He was a good guy-----a legend even in my own family.

There are much more legends. When I like to know whether a partner in a conversation knows really something about history then I ask him for example why Bernhard von Clairvaux - the propagator of the second crusade - was such a cruel anti-Semite. The answer is in most cases something what has to do with hate against holy church. But Bernhard was indeed a friend of the Jews. Later sometimes Jews honored him by calling their own children "Bernhard".

And why do I say this to you now? To show to you that history is much more complex and much more colorful than you think.

Your claim of "equal citizenship" is HILARIOUS.

In Prussia (="Germany") became in 1812 every Jew a citizen of Prussia. In 1847 Jews got the right to get a religious education in public schools, they had the right to travel everywhere and to seddle down everywhere and to do any job they liked to do. Only exception in the state were jobs which had to do with jurisdiction or executive powers like police. 1869 followed the complete equal treatment in Prussia. Two years before in 1867 this had happened in Austria-Hungaria. (In 1862 in Baden)

Vestiges of the CANON/NUREMBURG laws are memorialized in the mode of dress of the CHASSIDIC JEWS.

Thats absolutelly not comparable. In the middle ages existed dress codes for everyone and everything. You can see this very nice in Great Britain today for example.

The problem which the Nazi had was to use racism in combination with Jews, because Jews were in reality Germans like all others. No one was able to see who was a Jew or not. Their racial discrimination was bullshit - but instead to accept this they used markers: The names Israel and Sarah in passports and the very famous yellow star of David.

You may have not noticed---Their long coats do not have a pleat in the back. The pleat was placed in the back in order to accomodate a man when he sits astride a horse- Now give that fact some thought-----it is very interesting.

Why? Perhaps they used another clothing if they travelled. Perhaps it was directly forbidden to use a horse. Perhaps ...

More information---under FRANZ JOSEF my greatgrandfather had an actual job in the army that was not a 20 year FORCED stint----a very unusual

As far as I know this was not unusual. Many Jews were in the army

situation for a JEW at that time----the ENLIGHTENMENT (PS --if you have not figured it out yet HORSES were considered instruments of war and are illegal for jews under both Shariah and Canon law)

I don't know how to compare the Sharia and the Canon law. Although is existed laws in the church basing on the Justinian law of the year 533 (Roman law) it never existed a common law in the catholic world. This process of only one common law is very young. It exists a CIC from the year 1917 and now exists the CIC of the year 1983. All laws of the church for the church are in this book, as far as I know. But this means nothing in case of god. No one gives god rules or gives rules to his chosen people.

And if you should think in the Catholic religion exists a rule like "all Catholics go to heaven - all others not" or a rule like "make the life on planet Earth to a hell for all Jews" then you are wrong.

What is your point?

In 3 million words or less

Read what I write or let it be. Your problem.

You write novels because your word usage is inept reducing your ability to make a coherent point quickly.

Not everything is a comic, comicedian.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Except take beat downs from me, comrade.

... Since I beat you over the head with it, comrade.

It's by the way very fascinating to see how some people try to make a difference - (=try to discriminate) - between themselves and Nazis. Why do you not just simple write the good old american romantic Wild West sentence: "The only good German I ever saw was dead?".

 

[ding]

... Except take beat downs from me, comrade.

... Since I beat you over the head with it, comrade.

It's by the way very fascinating to see how some people try to make a difference - (=try to discriminate) - between themselves and Nazis. Why do you not just simple write the good old american romantic Wild West sentence: "The only good German I ever saw was dead?".

Only to Germans who try to take away 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.

I have been entirely reasonable with you. But you would have none of it.

 

[irosie91]

what is a schizzo ?