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

[zaangalewa]

... The Spartans ALSO denied the Helots the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ...

And the US-Americans denied the right of the Red Indians to wear fire arms. You replaced this very bad slaves with better slaves from Africa: Negroes. And you "Americans" murdered Red "Indians" in masses with the help of fire arms (for example directly or by killing bisons). And you supressed the black slaves with fire arms.

And now you own in masses private war weapons for what kind of private use?

You are certainly correct in your account of the USE of firearms by americans of the past in fighting american Indians. It is not clear to me that lots of blacks were shot in the past.

This I did not say. The slave-holders did not destroy their slaves - why should they do so? Their slaves were their forced laborers - a special kind of prisoners - and the weapons fetishsist of the USA today are in the tradition of this "prison guards" - of everyone. This all follows a logic of costs and profit and not a logic of humanity and justice.

At the present time the use of firearms in my neighborhood is largely in the hands of blacks.

Why sould negroes not be able to do wrong things? Because slaveholders use weapons weasin make not free, weapons enslave everyone - specially slaveholders or people who like to force others with weapons. On the own free will not any human being which is proud to be human being likes to be a slavholder or criminal and sometimes frustration, desperation, depression or fear and ntoi only anger and aggressions let people make wrong decisions too. Weapons are no solution for nothting - in best case they are only a kind of crook for people, who can not stand on their own.

I am fascinated to learn that Indians were denied the use of firearms, BY LAW? you got a citation?. Disarming people is nothing new-----and not INVENTED by americans

My knowledge is in this case from US western films, where the worst criminals were often weapon traders, who sold weapons to the Red Indian tribes.

 

[irosie91]

... The Spartans ALSO denied the Helots the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ...

And the US-Americans denied the right of the Red Indians to wear fire arms. You replaced this very bad slaves with better slaves from Africa: Negroes. And you "Americans" murdered Red "Indians" in masses with the help of fire arms (for example directly or by killing bisons). And you supressed the black slaves with fire arms.

And now you own in masses private war weapons for what kind of private use?

You are certainly correct in your account of the USE of firearms by americans of the past in fighting american Indians. It is not clear to me that lots of blacks were shot in the past.

This I did not say. The slave-holders did not destroy their slaves - why should they do so? Their slaves were their forced laborers - a special kind of prisoners - and the weapons fetishsist of the USA today are in the tradition of this "prison guards" - of everyone. This all follows a logic of costs and profit and not a logic of humanity and justice.

At the present time the use of firearms in my neighborhood is largely in the hands of blacks.

Why sould negroes not be able to do wrong things? Because slaveholders use weapons weasin make not free, weapons enslave everyone - specially slaveholders or people who like to force others with weapons. On the own free will not any human being which is proud to be human being likes to be a slavholder or criminal and sometimes frustration, desperation, depression or fear and ntoi only anger and aggressions let people make wrong decisions too. Weapons are no solution for nothting - in best case they are only a kind of crook for people, who can not stand on their own.

I am fascinated to learn that Indians were denied the use of firearms, BY LAW? you got a citation?. Disarming people is nothing new-----and not INVENTED by americans

My knowledge is in this case from western films, where the worst criminals were often weapon traders, who sold weapons to the Red Indian tribes.

... The Spartans ALSO denied the Helots the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ...

And the US-Americans denied the right of the Red Indians to wear fire arms. You replaced this very bad slaves with better slaves from Africa: Negroes. And you "Americans" murdered Red "Indians" in masses with the help of fire arms (for example directly or by killing bisons). And you supressed the black slaves with fire arms.

And now you own in masses private war weapons for what kind of private use?

You are certainly correct in your account of the USE of firearms by americans of the past in fighting american Indians. It is not clear to me that lots of blacks were shot in the past.

This I did not say. The slave-holders did not destroy their slaves - why should they do so? Their slaves were their forced laborers - a special kind of prisoners - and the weapons fetishsist of the USA today are in the tradition of this "prison guards" - of everyone. This all follows a logic of costs and profit and not a logic of humanity and justice.

At the present time the use of firearms in my neighborhood is largely in the hands of blacks.

Why sould negroes not be able to do wrong things? Because slaveholders use weapons weasin make not free, weapons enslave everyone - specially slaveholders or people who like to force others with weapons. On the own free will not any human being which is proud to be human being likes to be a slavholder or criminal and sometimes frustration, desperation, depression or fear and ntoi only anger and aggressions let people make wrong decisions too. Weapons are no solution for nothting - in best case they are only a kind of crook for people, who can not stand on their own.

I am fascinated to learn that Indians were denied the use of firearms, BY LAW? you got a citation?. Disarming people is nothing new-----and not INVENTED by americans

My knowledge is in this case from western films, where the worst criminals were often weapon traders, who sold weapons to the Red Indian tribes.

oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians. Sometimes
in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold
BOOZE to the Indians

 

[zaangalewa]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

 

[irosie91]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

you are very confused. You confabulate to the point that you seem to be delirious. But do not despair---you are not quite as confused as is your doppelganger---Pic

 

[Taz]

... 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.

Aha. Sounds like your god 2nd Amendmet gave you the order to murder all Red Indians. And everyone who is not accepting this gets the answer: You're next!

I have been entirely reasonable with you.

What a luck. If NRA-reasons help not any longer then you are able to start to murder the idiots who don't accept your NRA-reasons, because the NRA is a criminal organisation, which eliminates politicians, who try to care for a happy life of all US-Americans with better weapon laws. And I fear meanwhile you need also a special "war weapon control law for private war weapons in the USA" and international organisations, which have to control this law.

But you would have none of it.

We could solve this problem with a classic duell - unfortunatelly since 1891 AD the Catholic Church did forbid duels here in Germany. And I never will travel to the USA - if not god sends me into "his own country": Too many stupid criminals and criminal idiots with much too many weapons and war weapons there. But you know the USA better than I. You live there - better to say: You survive there.

I'm glad that my second amendment rights makes you crazy. It's like a two fer one.

I do not even know what your second amendment is and because the constitution of the USA is sacrosanct I never would try to speak about the only constitution the USA ever had with an US-American. But the weapon fetishism of the people in the USA is a totally mad thing, which has absolutelly nothing to do with reason and/or wisdom. Always to need more weapons, after someone became a victim of weapons, is the trying to replace a devil with satan. The US-American weapon fetishism is a psychological disease of the masses - and the criminal monster organisation NRA is the long term poison in this deadly game, while the criminals of this organisation preach weapons are a medicine. By the way: Weapons and freedom exclude each other. That's easily understandable for everyone with a sane mind.



Huna blentyn ar fy mynwes,
Clyd a chynnes ydyw hon;
Breichiau mam sy'n dynn amdanat,
Cariad mam sy dan fy mron;
Ni chaiff dim amharu'th gyntun,
Ni wna undyn â thi gam;
Huna'n dawel, annwyl blentyn,
Huna'n fwyn ar fron dy fam.

Huna'n dawel, heno, huna,
Huna'n fwyn, y tlws ei lun;
Pam yr wyt yn awr yn gwenu,
Gwenu'n dirion yn dy hun?
Ai angylion fry sy'n gwenu,
Arnat ti yn gwenu'n llon,
Tithau'n gwenu'n ôl dan huno,
Huno'n dawel ar fy mron?
...

I provided a detailed post on the second amendment in a reply to you.

I bet you didn't back anything up with a proper link.

You'd lose that bet just like you'd lose all the other bets you have made.

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.

FYI, you're supposed to put a link to your quote.

So which ass-backwards state lets you have a gun? Utah?

Hey, dummy, it's cited.

You still need the link for me to check your quote. Asswipe.

Ever hear of google? Google the citation or don't lesbians know how to use google, slit licker.

It's your post to link up, sheesh you're a fucking idiot. Cum swallower.

It's OK that you're against the 2nd amendment, sweetie. Most girls are afraid of firearms. That's why they have men to take care of them.

I'm against whatever you said that you couldn't back up. Back it up properly and I might agree with your position.

Btw, I have guns. And know how to use them.

I had heard a rumor that there was one lesbian that owned guns.

It's the one you married.

 

[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.

Aha. Sounds like your god 2nd Amendmet gave you the order to murder all Red Indians. And everyone who is not accepting this gets the answer: You're next!

I have been entirely reasonable with you.

What a luck. If NRA-reasons help not any longer then you are able to start to murder the idiots who don't accept your NRA-reasons, because the NRA is a criminal organisation, which eliminates politicians, who try to care for a happy life of all US-Americans with better weapon laws. And I fear meanwhile you need also a special "war weapon control law for private war weapons in the USA" and international organisations, which have to control this law.

But you would have none of it.

We could solve this problem with a classic duell - unfortunatelly since 1891 AD the Catholic Church did forbid duels here in Germany. And I never will travel to the USA - if not god sends me into "his own country": Too many stupid criminals and criminal idiots with much too many weapons and war weapons there. But you know the USA better than I. You live there - better to say: You survive there.

I'm glad that my second amendment rights makes you crazy. It's like a two fer one.

I do not even know what your second amendment is and because the constitution of the USA is sacrosanct I never would try to speak about the only constitution the USA ever had with an US-American. But the weapon fetishism of the people in the USA is a totally mad thing, which has absolutelly nothing to do with reason and/or wisdom. Always to need more weapons, after someone became a victim of weapons, is the trying to replace a devil with satan. The US-American weapon fetishism is a psychological disease of the masses - and the criminal monster organisation NRA is the long term poison in this deadly game, while the criminals of this organisation preach weapons are a medicine. By the way: Weapons and freedom exclude each other. That's easily understandable for everyone with a sane mind.



Huna blentyn ar fy mynwes,
Clyd a chynnes ydyw hon;
Breichiau mam sy'n dynn amdanat,
Cariad mam sy dan fy mron;
Ni chaiff dim amharu'th gyntun,
Ni wna undyn â thi gam;
Huna'n dawel, annwyl blentyn,
Huna'n fwyn ar fron dy fam.

Huna'n dawel, heno, huna,
Huna'n fwyn, y tlws ei lun;
Pam yr wyt yn awr yn gwenu,
Gwenu'n dirion yn dy hun?
Ai angylion fry sy'n gwenu,
Arnat ti yn gwenu'n llon,
Tithau'n gwenu'n ôl dan huno,
Huno'n dawel ar fy mron?
...

I provided a detailed post on the second amendment in a reply to you.

I bet you didn't back anything up with a proper link.

You'd lose that bet just like you'd lose all the other bets you have made.

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.

FYI, you're supposed to put a link to your quote.

So which ass-backwards state lets you have a gun? Utah?

Hey, dummy, it's cited.

You still need the link for me to check your quote. Asswipe.

Ever hear of google? Google the citation or don't lesbians know how to use google, slit licker.

It's your post to link up, sheesh you're a fucking idiot. Cum swallower.

It's OK that you're against the 2nd amendment, sweetie. Most girls are afraid of firearms. That's why they have men to take care of them.

I'm against whatever you said that you couldn't back up. Back it up properly and I might agree with your position.

Btw, I have guns. And know how to use them.

I had heard a rumor that there was one lesbian that owned guns.

It's the one you married.

She doesn't own a gun, sweetie.

 

[zaangalewa]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

you are very confused. You confabulate to the point that you seem to be delirious. But do not despair---you are not quite as confused as is your doppelganger---Pic

no comment

 

[abu afak]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

Stop hogging the keyboard.
Give the other patients a chance.

`

 

[zaangalewa]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

Stop hogging the keyboard.
Give the other patients a chance.

`

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

 

[abu afak]

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

Your posts are incoherent.
You are insane.
You need to be removed.

`

 

[zaangalewa]

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

Your posts are incoherent.
You are insane.
You need to be removed.

.

Then put me on your death list, Nazi. It will for sure not be the first and also not the only one.

 

[abu afak]

The

you are very confused. You confabulate to the point that you seem to be delirious. But do not despair---you are not quite as confused as is your doppelganger---Pic

He's more than confused.
He's probably confined. (and adds a yboobtube to his replies)
`

 

[zaangalewa]

The

you are very confused. You confabulate to the point that you seem to be delirious. But do not despair---you are not quite as confused as is your doppelganger---Pic

He's more than confused.
He's probably confined. (and adds a yboobtube to his replies)
`

Perfect Nazi-speech. Any idea to whom you speak? Who is your "collective"? And what is your corrective? A shame that you misuse the name of a Jewish poet.

 

[ding]

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

Your posts are incoherent.
You are insane.
You need to be removed.

`

Sort of like a final solution?

 

[Picaro]

lol another Pity Party for 'native americans', as if they were yet more hapless innocent hippie like hobbits ravaged and murdered for no reason at all like all the other victims of Da Evul White WASPs. Wonder why all these minorities still exist and are free to run around sniveling and crying if the Evul WASPs were committing all those 'Genocides N Stuff'? Wouldn't they all be dead by now?

 

[Picaro]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

Your poor Red Indians' could be hired to murder anybody en masse for a keg of rum or two, and almost every tribe only took captives for either slaves or to rape the women until they died and tortured the any males they captured for entertainment and sport. They didn't 'learn that from Da White Man', either, it was a long and proud part of their 'culture'. Same with South Americans, only they had the added entertainment of tossing children into deep water pits or volcanoes for fun, when they weren't playing football with the heads of villagers they raided or just slaves who had outlived their usefulness. But it really is too bad Da Evul WASPs 'ruined' their traditional'cultural values n stuff', since it would fun to make PBS documentaries of what they would do to clueless modern dumbasses who walked up and tried to pet one of the animals. ISIS is a pretty good modern example of such savages.

One of the more idiotic aspects of history as seen through the eyes of the dope addled Burb Brat is how Lincoln is revered for his slaughter in the name of corporate welfare by the left, when it was his Generals who went on to tame the West with all those 'unjust massacres of savages'. He magically doesn't get the credit for starting that and bringing his own special brand of warfare to the West.

 

[irosie91]

... oh---ok but that fact does not indicate that there were laws denying weapons to Indians.

Red Indians were not citizens of the USA in the Wild West. And clearly the Red Indians were able to defend themselve against attacks of US-Americans before [semi-]automatic weapons were invented. "You" murdered Red Indians in masses during the 19th century. I know on my own personal experience how vivid the racism of US-Americans against Red Indians still had been in the late 20th century. And today the USA makes also crimes - for example in the concentration camp Guantanamo bay - by not using US-American laws for prisoners, who are not US-Americans.

Sometimes in westerns the bad guys are the people who sold BOOZE to the Indians

This are the same people who sold weapons. The history of violence and war is in reality also always a history of alcohol, drugs and destroyed brains.

Your poor Red Indians' could be hired to murder anybody en masse for a keg of rum or two, and almost every tribe only took captives for either slaves or to rape the women until they died and tortured the any males they captured for entertainment and sport. They didn't 'learn that from Da White Man', either, it was a long and proud part of their 'culture'. Same with South Americans, only they had the added entertainment of tossing children into deep water pits or volcanoes for fun, when they weren't playing football with the heads of villagers they raided or just slaves who had outlived their usefulness. But it really is too bad Da Evul WASPs 'ruined' their traditional'cultural values n stuff', since it would fun to make PBS documentaries of what they would do to clueless modern dumbasses who walked up and tried to pet one of the animals. ISIS is a pretty good modern example of such savages.

One of the more idiotic aspects of history as seen through the eyes of the dope addled Burb Brat is how Lincoln is revered for his slaughter in the name of corporate welfare by the left, when it was his Generals who went on to tame the West with all those 'unjust massacres of savages'. He magically doesn't get the credit for starting that and bringing his own special brand of warfare to the West.

calm down Pic----your perspective on the natives
of the americas is even more childish than your
perspective on early christian history. Did you color
cartoons lots in Sunday School

 

[zaangalewa]

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

Your posts are incoherent.
You are insane.
You need to be removed.

`

Sort of like a final solution?

The usual way of the propagandists of hate. If they are not able to argue, because they miss truth and/or intellectual capacity, then they try to defame and to isolate the people, who don't share their wrong thoughts. If it becomes not true what they say with this method - ¿how should it? - then they use torture, prisons, executions and so on ...

The "final solution" (the shoa, the holocaust) is for example the answer to a question, which never had existed before it was produced with a continuous stream of always the same wrong nonsense, which had had nothing to do with reality.

 

[ding]

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

Your posts are incoherent.
You are insane.
You need to be removed.

`

Sort of like a final solution?

The usual way of the propagandists of hate. If they are not able to argue, because they miss truth and/or intellectual capacity, then they try to defame and to isolate the people, who don't share their wrong thoughts. If it becomes not true what they say with this method - ¿how should it? - then they use torture, prisons, executions and so on ...

The "final solution" (the shoa, the holocaust) is for example the answer to a question, which never had existed before it was not produced with an continuous stream of always the same wrong nonsense, which had nothing to do with reality.

The reality is that people dehumanize others so they can rationalize their bad acts as good. That's the reality. Now please leave me the fuck alone.

 

[irosie91]

To bless what? To let continue to destroy the lifes of everyones sisters and brothers and of gods living creation?

Your posts are incoherent.
You are insane.
You need to be removed.

`

Sort of like a final solution?

The usual way of the propagandists of hate. If they are not able to argue, because they miss truth and/or intellectual capacity, then they try to defame and to isolate the people, who don't share their wrong thoughts. If it becomes not true what they say with this method - ¿how should it? - then they use torture, prisons, executions and so on ...

The "final solution" (the shoa, the holocaust) is for example the answer to a question, which never had existed before it was not produced with an continuous stream of always the same wrong nonsense, which had nothing to do with reality.

The reality is that people dehumanize others so they can rationalize their bad acts as good. That's the reality. Now please leave me the fuck alone.

Sheeeesh D and Z----I have not experienced such BITTERNESS in casual conversation since I witnessed---uhm about 55 years ago-----a little protestant girl and a little catholic girl argue over the POSITION of Mary
in the hierarchy of heaven