Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: gz on April 19, 2007, 12:09:17 AM

Title: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: gz on April 19, 2007, 12:09:17 AM

The gun shop owner who sold him the Glock 9 mm, one of the guns used at Norris Hall, said Cho easily passed a background check last month before buying the weapon.


(http://images.scotsman.com/2007/04/18/GNB.jpg)

Cho Seung-Hui walked into a gun shop five weeks ago, paid the £285 bill by credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. The pistol was one of two guns found carrying Cho's fingerprints after he fatally shot 32 people and then himself at Virginia Tech University.

John Markell, owner of Roanoke Firearms, yesterday confirmed his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March. "It was a very unremarkable sale," said Mr Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea that a purchase is suspicious." Mr Markell said it was not unusual for students to buy from his shop as long as they were old enough. The minimum age to buy a handgun in Virginia is 18. The South Korean-born Cho, 23, was a legal, permanent US resident and eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records.

The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and is one which pressure groups hotly defend. Guns, with some regulation, are widely available to buy across the US. This shooting shows that gun are the problem and Americans should not have the right to carry arms.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: thebig on April 19, 2007, 12:21:12 AM
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws.

In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: goodsport on April 19, 2007, 06:04:23 AM
Very interesitng thread!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: lflyer on April 19, 2007, 08:02:15 AM
If guns are banned, the possession of them will be illegal.  Criminals, by definition, are not concerned with breaking the law.  Thus, the situation that will arise is one in which criminals (and police officers) are the only ones in society that possess guns.  I realize that the police are there to protect us and yada, yada, yada.  However, they cannot be everywhere at once.  To think that they will always be by your side when someone starts shooting is absurd.  Ultimately, law-abiding citizens will be reduced to bullseyes in target practice.  I guess everyone will not share this sentiment, but if I am getting shot at, I atleast want the opportunity to fire a few rounds back.

Anyone thinking a ban on guns would have prevented this needs to re-evaluate the situation.  In addition to my above comments about criminals continuing to possess guns after a national ban, people like Cho, who have so much anger built up, are going to commit atrocities whether they have access to guns or not.  If Cho had not had access to guns, he either would have taken a knife and killed alot less people or built a bomb and killed alot more people.  Ultimately, a ban on guns just isn't the fix-all solution in dealing with these types of people/crimes.

In reference to the Second Amendment claim, I will concede that, depending on how carefully it is read, it does not even give free society the right to bare arms.  I have heard several arguments in which people have twisted the words (successfully, I think) into meanings such as this.  So, unfortunately, I do not believe the 2nd gives a categorical advantage to pro-gun advocates.  However, most seem to believe that this amendment DOES give free society the right to possess guns.  So, any ban on guns (unless it is very narrow), I would assume, would therefore have to negate this right.  I just dont see that happening.  I really doubt that the 2nd would be wholly repealed and I feel equally strong that a Trop "evolving standards of decency" (in line with the above poster who talks about how guns are no longer necessary) ruling is not in the cards either.

While the VT shootings have focused everyone on the gun issue, I think one crucial point is being missed: we have traded 30 lives for political correctness.  Should background checks for gun purchases include mental histories?  YES.  However, besides being sealed records, rights groups will be up in arms (no pun) over discrimination if someone with one little mental health lapse is no longer treated as an equal within mainstream society.  Should the VT administration have acted with more strength and quickness?  YES.  I realize that this all happened very quickly, but there was certainly enough time to make an adequate response after the first shooting.  However, concerned with overreaction and putting the campus into a frenzy, the administration/police did nothing (or very little).  If they had put out a quick word, the second shootings never would have happened.  Why?  Because 1) very few people would have been in class to shoot at, and 2) with everyone staying inside their living areas and the police on campus looking for the shooter, Cho would have stood out like a sore thumb walking to the engineering building.  However, they took a gamble to try and keep things as low-key as possible and it bit them in the ass.

Now let me assure you I am fully sympathetic to the plight of VT, the students, and their families.  However, I've been getting called insensitive all week, so feel free to slap that label on me.  I'll close with a quote by the Virginia governor, since I probably could not have put it better myself:


"People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them,"
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: txlawstu on April 19, 2007, 09:40:19 AM
Quote "This shooting shows that gun are the problem and Americans should not have the right to carry arms."

How? 

Just because one unstable boy choose guns as his method of showing the world some unknown wrong had to be corrected you think that noone should own a gun?

Some examples of how they would do the same thing without guns:
McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to blow up the Federal Building in OKC.
Some I found on Wikepedia:
In 1990, Julio González set fire to a New York City nightclub after having a fight there with his girlfriend. Eighty-seven people died in the blaze (Gonzalez's girlfriend survived).
One of the most bizarre cases was that of Sadamichi Hirasawa, who poisoned twelve bank workers by cyanide during a robbery.

If you make guns illegal, hunting will no longer be possible.  Making hunting impossibe you will be taking food out of the poor's mouths.  You will be causing wildlife populations to die of overpopulation thus of starvation and disease.

The majority of gun violence is done with guns purchased illegally.  You can make a gun with spare parts here and there if you know how.  Hell, you can make one using a potato.  Making them illegal will not solve the problem.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: wardwilliams on April 19, 2007, 09:51:36 AM
it is a non issue. to ban guns would take a repeal of 2nd amendment. This could never happen. Think of all the states that would never vote for it (I think 2/3 are needed to repeal an amendment or maybe 3/4) TX, FL, all the southern states, all the western states, VT, AK, etc etc.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Felsen on April 19, 2007, 10:50:22 AM
it is a non issue. to ban guns would take a repeal of 2nd amendment. This could never happen. Think of all the states that would never vote for it (I think 2/3 are needed to repeal an amendment or maybe 3/4) TX, FL, all the southern states, all the western states, VT, AK, etc etc.

Darn it.  Where's that copy of the Constitution when you really need it?  Even my Con Law professor said we wouldn't need to read the thing again after we were done with his class.

;)

On the serious side.  The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment, so it only applies to the federal government and not the States.  It isn't even held inviolate at the federal level.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: johns259 on April 19, 2007, 11:41:36 AM
That's one reason why DC feels their regulations are constitutional.

HOWEVER, why not just ban the sale of handgun and assault rifle rounds to private individuals?

I don't see much of a Second Amendment problem, unless you read the word "bear" as meaning use in some type of defensive capacity outside of a "militia" capacity. If that's a concern, you could even allow some kind of waiver for private individuals who can show "need" in the maintenance of a militia that's demonstrated purpose is our country's common defense, which of course would be waived for all private individuals in times of "imminent danger" to our country.

Yet, there would still be the problem of the black market arming criminals while leaving law-abiding citizens without firearms. Unfortunately, I haven't really played with these ideas much, so there's likely case law I'm not aware of. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Jumboshrimps on April 19, 2007, 12:00:30 PM
The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment, so it only applies to the federal government and not the States.  It isn't even held inviolate at the federal level.

Interesting. This haden't occured to me until I read your post. The gun lobbyists are so ingrained in American culture and thier ideas so attached to American discourse that it never occured to me that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from banning guns altogether.

This lobby must be stopped. An unstable college kid should not be able to buy a gun the way he buys a pack of gum. Period. The stakes are too high. This "right" to bear arms has no roots in law the way the right to vote or the right to be secure in our persons and possessions do. Guns need not be banned; they just need to be extremely tough to acquire. This means cracking down on legal gun sales, but to a much greater extent, it means cracking down on illegal gun distribution. From my perspective, that means the manufacturers and wholesale dealers of firearms need to assume some risk here, and on an international level.

The stakes are too high. Guns work too well.     
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: CoxlessPair on April 19, 2007, 12:37:22 PM
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: wardwilliams on April 19, 2007, 01:18:55 PM
it is a non issue. to ban guns would take a repeal of 2nd amendment. This could never happen. Think of all the states that would never vote for it (I think 2/3 are needed to repeal an amendment or maybe 3/4) TX, FL, all the southern states, all the western states, VT, AK, etc etc.

Darn it.  Where's that copy of the Constitution when you really need it?  Even my Con Law professor said we wouldn't need to read the thing again after we were done with his class.

;)

On the serious side.  The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment, so it only applies to the federal government and not the States.  It isn't even held inviolate at the federal level.


I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Even if it is not incorporated against the states, how could a state pass a law that is against the Constitution/supreme law of the land? If a state passed a law that said that said, for instance "warrants may issue VAGUELY discribing the places to be searched" wouldn't that be unconstitutional (4th Am.) for the state to pass such a law? Same with 2nd Am...if a state passed a law banning guns, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Jumboshrimps on April 19, 2007, 01:30:12 PM
it is a non issue. to ban guns would take a repeal of 2nd amendment. This could never happen. Think of all the states that would never vote for it (I think 2/3 are needed to repeal an amendment or maybe 3/4) TX, FL, all the southern states, all the western states, VT, AK, etc etc.

Darn it.  Where's that copy of the Constitution when you really need it?  Even my Con Law professor said we wouldn't need to read the thing again after we were done with his class.

;)

On the serious side.  The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment, so it only applies to the federal government and not the States.  It isn't even held inviolate at the federal level.


I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Even if it is not incorporated against the states, how could a state pass a law that is against the Constitution/supreme law of the land? If a state passed a law that said that said, for instance "warrants may issue VAGUELY discribing the places to be searched" wouldn't that be unconstitutional (4th Am.) for the state to pass such a law? Same with 2nd Am...if a state passed a law banning guns, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal Goverment. It does not address the power of individual states (except in the 10th Amendment). The 14th Amendment has not made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states.

The 4th Amendment, on the other hand, HAS been incorporated. So a state must both respect and parrot a citizen's federal right not to be illegally searched, but it need not abstain from impeding the federal right to bear arms, because that rule restrains only the actions of Congress (and presumably the President).
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Bob Loblaw Esq. on April 19, 2007, 01:31:39 PM
(http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/collections/1991/images/df1991-133.gif)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Bob Loblaw Esq. on April 19, 2007, 01:33:41 PM
i'm sorry. Too funny to pass up.

(http://unitedstates.fm/pics/_response.jpeg)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: CoxlessPair on April 19, 2007, 02:21:18 PM
I think heavyset women in maroon sweaters with a Remington 870 prone behind a couch cushion are EXACTLY what our founding fathers anticipated with the 2nd.

She doesn't need the gun to keep me out of that house.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: plex on April 19, 2007, 03:54:34 PM
The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: CoxlessPair on April 19, 2007, 05:34:23 PM
The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

So there would be no possibility of obtaining illegal traditional ammo? The criminals get hollow jacketed rounds and you are shooting play-doh?

Factor how easy it would be given the vast quantities already on the market, international sources, etc.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: tortfeasor111 on April 19, 2007, 05:48:31 PM
The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

So there would be no possibility of obtaining illegal traditional ammo? The criminals get hollow jacketed rounds and you are shooting play-doh?

Factor how easy it would be given the vast quantities already on the market, international sources, etc.


The rubber bullets are certainly not play-doh.  They are shot at such a high rate of speed that they can do a lot of damage.  Numerous people have actually been killed because they've been shot with a rubber bullet.  Anyway, as I said before, I'm just sick of America's obsession with guns.  Every day 8 children are killed by gun violence.  It is just way too easy to purchase a gun, and then kill 32 people.  A judge ruled him a danger to himself, and he was still allowed to purchase a firearm.  Furthermore, the firearm he purchases serves no useful purpose; what can you possible use a 9MM for besides shooting at a target range?  What could you possibly use a Glock for?  It's just sad :(
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: lflyer on April 19, 2007, 06:32:10 PM
As I said before, we traded 30+ lives for the political correctness of sealed mental history records. 

I agree with the above post.  If law-abiding citizens were only allowed to use rubber bullets, we might as well be throwing rocks at the people shooting hollow points back at us.  If someone is shooting at me, I'm not worried about incapacitating them with rubber bullets, I'm shooting to kill and I want ammo that can accomplish that goal.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: plex on April 19, 2007, 06:32:30 PM
The main argument, as best I can tell, for having anything other than a hunting rifle, is for the sake of protection against someone else who is armed. I really haven't heard any strong arguments beyond that, so I will focus on that problem.

Why do we only have guns available that are designed to kill people???

If people were given ammunition such as rubber bullets, they at least wouldn't kill people when they shot them. There is some chance they would kill them, since they would have to be fired with enough pressure to stop someone, but they wouldn't be designed to kill people.

Even better would be to have a gun that administers a non-lethal charge or very fast acting sedative when you shoot someone rather than physically punches holes in them, but it would very likely be expensive and take awhile to implement something like that, so using rubber bullets would be a good immediate fix.

For the hunters, as I mentioned above at the beggining, they would still be able to have their hunting rifles, as long as they didn't have a criminal record or some serious psychological problem.

That should solve the problem for both sides, I don't understand why this hasn't happened by now.

So there would be no possibility of obtaining illegal traditional ammo? The criminals get hollow jacketed rounds and you are shooting play-doh?

Factor how easy it would be given the vast quantities already on the market, international sources, etc.


I guess you have never seen what a cranked up paintball gun can do, you can break bones with them when you crank them up high enough (which is illegal, it is easy to do though, at my undergrad, the area was fairly dangerous, so car's get stolen on a regular basis, frats have an easy time deterring potential robbers with them, they don't need to go buy real guns, they do plenty enough damage with something like a paintball gun, using real guns when there are less deadly options is just common sense). Rubber bullets are much worse, they are solid and not designed to break and disperse the damage when they hit someone, I was just suggesting them to give some middle ground, someone would still have a very good chance of getting killed by one, I just wanted to suggest the option to you bloodthirsty types.

You should have a little more respect for human life, I assure you breaking a bunch of bones in their bodies would take them down. And it isn't like any of you are speaking from real experience, now are you, unless you did go to school in a dangerous area, in which case, you wouldn't have been using a real gun in the first place, because that is insane.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: lflyer on April 19, 2007, 07:46:10 PM
I guess you have never seen what a cranked up paintball gun can do, you can break bones with them when you crank them up high enough (which is illegal, it is easy to do though, at my undergrad, the area was fairly dangerous, so car's get stolen on a regular basis, frats have an easy time deterring potential robbers with them, they don't need to go buy real guns, they do plenty enough damage with something like a paintball gun, using real guns when there are less deadly options is just common sense). Rubber bullets are much worse, they are solid and not designed to break and disperse the damage when they hit someone, I was just suggesting them to give some middle ground, someone would still have a very good chance of getting killed by one, I just wanted to suggest the option to you bloodthirsty types.

You should have a little more respect for human life, I assure you breaking a bunch of bones in their bodies would take them down. And it isn't like any of you are speaking from real experience, now are you, unless you did go to school in a dangerous area, in which case, you wouldn't have been using a real gun in the first place, because that is insane.
[/quote]


I'm confused.  I'm supposed to respect the life of someone who is trying to take mine?  I've never heard that one before.  I really don't know what to say about it.  Also, I didn't want to bring it up and sound like a huge tool, but since you mentioned it, yes I have been shot at and (in one instance) shot at an intruder.  My intention is not to, by any means, flaunt this, because I think it is a sad that things come to this.  But I think it gives me the credibility to express my views on the issue.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Todd on April 19, 2007, 08:00:00 PM
Simply put, we should search mental records for gun buyers. I see nothing wrong with a 3 day waiting period to help prevent passion crimes. We should crack down on illegal gun sales. And if gun dealer makes a mistake and sells to the wrong person, they should get shut-down.

But I beg to differ on the paintball and rubber bullet ideas. Wear a flak jacket and your basically immune to them because it's hard to hit somebody in the face or arm - they move around a bit more than the torso. Even with a flak jacket a .44 will hurt a ton, probably won't knock you down, but man it'll hurt. (the movies are full of hogwash, getting shot is unlikely to knock you down from the impact alone).
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: CoxlessPair on April 19, 2007, 08:47:12 PM
Simply put, we should search mental records for gun buyers. I see nothing wrong with a 3 day waiting period to help prevent passion crimes. We should crack down on illegal gun sales. And if gun dealer makes a mistake and sells to the wrong person, they should get shut-down.

But I beg to differ on the paintball and rubber bullet ideas. Wear a flak jacket and your basically immune to them because it's hard to hit somebody in the face or arm - they move around a bit more than the torso. Even with a flak jacket a .44 will hurt a ton, probably won't knock you down, but man it'll hurt. (the movies are full of hogwash, getting shot is unlikely to knock you down from the impact alone).

Where do you draw the line for mental records? Does extreme ADHD equal being disqualified? How about a social disorder that is easily treatable with medication?

Further, your comment about staying up after being tagged by a .44 magnum round is way off. After the inception of the 9mm Luger Parabellum, police and US Armed Forces found that the lack of stopping power was its biggest problem. If you had someone jacked up on a drug such as PCP, or even adrenaline, a non-fatal wound from a 9mm was never enough to actually put them down. This is why police forces/Coast Guard are almost all moving to the .40 S&W or .357 SIG. These are pistol rounds that will knock a person down. When you move into the realm of the .45 ACP or .44 Mag, it is incredible stopping power, though equally incredible kickback. While the movies are wrong in that a round won't send you flying back, I would love to see someone with Kevlar on and stay standing after a torso shot from any of the higher caliber pistol.

And lastly, in regard to Tortfesor's post, the point of having a Glock 17/19 (the popular 9mm models) is useful as the answer to problems like Cho. Criminal elements will always be able to obtain firearms, illegal or not. It seems absurd to not allow normal citizens (which I agree should be more regulated) the ability to defend against that element. I'm hardly a Red State 2nd Amendment True Believer, but there are a lot of bad people out there. Having a pistol or shotgun for defense purposes is not simply in the province of Montana living militia-members. If you were ever in a situation in which basic social services broke down such as after Katrina, when your life/life of loved ones was at stake, I have a feeling your rubber bullets line would go out the window.
Obviously Cho was someone that makes this nation's access to guns somewhat suspect. However, as I think it was noted above, this was one disturbed and crazy a-hole. If not a Glock, why not a pipebomb or something equally destructive?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: verbal on April 19, 2007, 08:53:16 PM
has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: kilroy55 on April 19, 2007, 10:38:27 PM
has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

Really?  Where does it say in the Constitution that we can over throw the government?  I must have missed that part, mixed in somewhere about putting down rebellions. 

This so called right to overthrow is found in the Declaration, which the Court sometimes looks too.  We "overthrow" the government by election, not by arms. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Jumboshrimps on April 20, 2007, 11:15:31 AM
has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

Really?  Where does it say in the Constitution that we can over throw the government?  I must have missed that part, mixed in somewhere about putting down rebellions. 

This so called right to overthrow is found in the Declaration, which the Court sometimes looks too.  We "overthrow" the government by election, not by arms. 

When in the course of human events...

I'm pretty sure the government "overthrow" to which the Declaration referred was to be accomplished with arms, not votes. I agree that the Declaration gives us a right to overthrow our government, but the scope of that right is rather abstract. It would be hypocritical of our constitution to come into existence by overthrow, yet deny to us the right to do it again if the further "course of human events" again calls for it.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: kilroy55 on April 20, 2007, 01:31:07 PM
has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

Really?  Where does it say in the Constitution that we can over throw the government?  I must have missed that part, mixed in somewhere about putting down rebellions. 

This so called right to overthrow is found in the Declaration, which the Court sometimes looks too.  We "overthrow" the government by election, not by arms. 

When in the course of human events...

I'm pretty sure the government "overthrow" to which the Declaration referred was to be accomplished with arms, not votes. I agree that the Declaration gives us a right to overthrow our government, but the scope of that right is rather abstract. It would be hypocritical of our constitution to come into existence by overthrow, yet deny to us the right to do it again if the further "course of human events" again calls for it.

So what do you say of Abraham Lincoln's actions during the 1860s?  Was the United States government in need of overthrowing then?  This argument is absurd.  You right wingers love to talk about strict construction and originalism.  But when it doesn't serve your purposes, you become just as activist as any liberal judge.   
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Jumboshrimps on April 20, 2007, 02:19:37 PM

I'm pretty sure the government "overthrow" to which the Declaration referred was to be accomplished with arms, not votes. I agree that the Declaration gives us a right to overthrow our government, but the scope of that right is rather abstract. It would be hypocritical of our constitution to come into existence by overthrow, yet deny to us the right to do it again if the further "course of human events" again calls for it.

So what do you say of Abraham Lincoln's actions during the 1860s?  Was the United States government in need of overthrowing then?  This argument is absurd.  You right wingers love to talk about strict construction and originalism.  But when it doesn't serve your purposes, you become just as activist as any liberal judge.   
[/quote]

A goverment also has an implicit right to sustain and defend itself. The Civil War is the perfect example of these two co-existing rights being exercised at the same time. That fact may be absurd, but its truth is not. And the approach I've just taken is is that of a "strict constructionist." It would be truly radical to propose that the American revolutionaries felt that any government was beyond being dismantled by its people. In fact, the spirit of the Constitution is precisely the opposite.

As for the "right winger" comment, you obviously confuse political conservatism with judicial conservatism. One can be a bleeding heart social and political liberal while mainaining the utmost respect for the purely passive and interpretive duty of federal courts. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: txlawstu on April 23, 2007, 04:05:51 PM
Handguns are an important part of hunting.  They do have a purpose other than killing people and target practice.

Rubber bullets are not the answer because traditional bullets are easily made.  If you can't buy them, then you make your own.  Plus, they would still make traditional bullets for hunting purposes.

As far as the mental health issue goes.  Cho was ordered into a 72 hour evaluation.  An evaluation does not mean you are insane, incompetent, etc.  It means the Judge has reason to believe at the time that you need to be observed.  So even if you open up mental health records to searches a 72 hour evaluation is not likely to be an indicator unless the psychiatrist found a sustained mental illness during that eval.  And the problem is what mental illnesses are considered not gun worthy? 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Budlaw on April 23, 2007, 05:00:11 PM
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: CoxlessPair on April 23, 2007, 05:13:14 PM
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

Hahahahahaha. The cat is out of the bag!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: tortfeasor111 on April 23, 2007, 05:26:15 PM
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.  
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: xferlawstudent on April 23, 2007, 05:50:23 PM
I'm a card carrying ACLU member and I strongly support the right to bear arms.  I do think however we should examine our control laws.  I agree that everyone just needs to relax and take a deep breath.  It is a bad idea to react to this tragedy with a sweeping ban on guns.  I think we should try to come up with a better system for regulating who can get guns, but we need to be very careful of the possibility that heavy regulation will only keep guns away from the good guys.

I just wanted to respond to Budlaw and let him know that some ACLU members support the second amendment.  I believe the ACLU itself is neutral on the issue.

So in sum, I think it is a mistake to completely ban weapons and likewise it is a mistake to have no restrictions whatsoever.

This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)
Title: Is the right to bear arms worth the death of 33 innocent people?
Post by: adrenaline on April 24, 2007, 12:51:04 AM
When you can't send your son or daughter off to college without worrying about someone coldly killing them in the midst of enriching their lives, something is morbidly wrong with the nation in which you live.

As a US citizen currently living abroad, and with a child, I face none of the fears that I faced living in the states. Yes, there are psychos, wack jobs and disgruntled high-school dropouts all over the world. However, the rest of the world is somehow smart enough to not give them easy access to guns. Why, in one of the richest and most "advanced" (I use that word with great reservation) societies on Earth are we not smart enough to realize this?

Just moments after the attack, our White House, in its infinite wisdom and compassion, stated, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. Abhorrent! With the blood of the crime not yet dried, the President is already thinking of this in terms of an issue rather than a travesty, and in effect, supporting the rights of the killer. Will the United States government forever be an ostrich with its head in the sand on this issue?

As much as the White House's response to this was pathetic and unconscionable, the government is not the only one to blame. We the people need to stop thinking about this problem as a foregone conclusion. Across Europe and Asia they have no such problem because you cannot easily purchase a gun -- certainly not pistols and automatic weapons. There is no reason that US citizens cannot live in communities like this one day. When are we going to start caring more about the gun catastrophe in the United States, than we do about next years taxes, which judges were fired last month, or who wins on American Idol?

We need to stop accepting the premise of guns as a necessary part of US society. In Virginia's shooting, several students are already trying to lay blame on the university for not getting the word out about the shooter -- as if this is something the university should have a ready contingency for. Press a red button and alert the school another lunatic is shooting people. These students shouldn't be blaming the reactions of the school; they should be blaming the actions of the government, the NRA, the gun makers, and any of their family or friends who support the easy purchase of guns.

So what can you do? The same thing we've always had the opportunity to do. Write an email or letter to your Congressman, Senator and President and tell them that enough is enough. The US needs stricter, much stricter, gun controls. The tragedy of these college students' deaths is far too monumental to truly take meaning on this page. Nor will it mean anything after countless hours on CNN. The only way to give this horror the gravity it deserves is to do something about it. Please join me in letting the US government know that they are wrong supporting the companies who manufacture guns, organizations who proliferate gun use and people who use guns to kill.

http://poppoliticos.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/is-the-right-to-bear-arms-worth-the-death-of-33-college-students/
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Budlaw on April 24, 2007, 09:11:07 AM
Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.

My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.

You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.

There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.

However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.







This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.  
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: tortfeasor111 on April 24, 2007, 10:39:28 AM
Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.

My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.

You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.

There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.

However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.







This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.  

Oh man, first of all, I didn't say gun control laws WOULD OR WOULD NOT help, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from?  I just aked how can you be so sure that gun control laws would not affect the murder rate at all?  I mean, aren't murder rates extremely low in countries with gun control laws?  What makes you think the same wouldn't happen here?  Anyway, I suppose I'm just sick of children being able to get guns (more children have been murdered by guns from 2004-2006, thean the number of troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan).  I mean if you really don't think gun violence is a problem in this country, and you want to keep things exactly the same, and you don't want to give something new a chance, then that's your perogative.  But, I'm willing to try something new, because I'm tired of immature children being able to get their hands on a deadly weapon so easily and causing so much harm.  And no, I don't have a comprehensive plan, I don't even know if one would work, but I think we need to try SOMETHING.  Maybe you can tell me, what is America's obsession with owning a gun anyway?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: JohnnyAwesome on April 25, 2007, 12:31:25 AM
one of my friends at school cuts the sleeves off all his shirts. is that what the 2d. amendment is talking about?


sorry i had to do it.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: johns259 on April 25, 2007, 12:49:35 AM
I highly doubt that kid could've easily gotten those guns on the black market, considering he didn't know anybody. Based on the fact that he tried to remove the serial numbers, he would've gotten them off the black market or stolen them if he could have. Guns aren't the easiest things to find on the street, though that's not to say he wouldn't have eventually gotten them from somewhere, probably Richmond or DC was his best bet unless he found somebody local through the internet.

Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.

My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.

You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.

There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.

However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.







This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Bob D on April 25, 2007, 10:06:43 AM
The 2nd Amendment is clearly a federalism clause. The federal government has no power to prevent state governments from having militias.

Because none of the first eight Amendments were intended to apply to the States, this doesn't prevent states from enacting gun control if they wish.

Virginia, having a lot of redneck types who love owning guns, doesn't wish to have any gun control.

Why isn't anyone at least asking why people who AREN'T EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS are allowed to buy a gun?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: philibusters on April 25, 2007, 12:58:47 PM
The 2nd Amendment is clearly a federalism clause. The federal government has no power to prevent state governments from having militias.

Because none of the first eight Amendments were intended to apply to the States, this doesn't prevent states from enacting gun control if they wish.

Virginia, having a lot of redneck types who love owning guns, doesn't wish to have any gun control.

Why isn't anyone at least asking why people who AREN'T EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS are allowed to buy a gun?

Even if it is a federalism clause at heart, the amendment seeks to promote its structural goals by a particular means-giving citizens the rights to bear arms.  What motivated the framers to pass the amendment is irrelevant in terms of how we interpret the amendment, if the amendment clearly sets out the parameters of the means, and the rights it gives.  If you disagree with the means the framers used on that federalism issue, change the amendment, it might have been a stupid amendment to begin with.

I agree with the rest of what you posted, though I will note that whether a state allows non-citizens to buy guns is a state issue and "Virginia, have a lot..."
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Bob Loblaw Esq. on April 25, 2007, 01:40:50 PM
one of my friends at school cuts the sleeves off all his shirts. is that what the 2d. amendment is talking about?


sorry i had to do it.

yes, I believe so. however, i believe the arms must in fact be bare, or as I like to say, "bear." The example below is an obvious misuse of the 2nd amendment.

(http://www.tgfa.org/fiction/images/CrookedMan6.gif)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: false dilemma on April 27, 2007, 12:29:54 AM

Re: Is the right to bear arms worth the death of 33 innocent people?


Yes.

Bad things happen. They will always happen. To restrict the rights of the overall, law abiding, decent population of a nation to prohibit or at least limit the actions of a few psychopaths is wrong. We don't need "stricter, much stricter, gun controls." We need better human controls. An unstable, unpredictable, violent individual is going to cause harm no matter what. To cut the rights of everybody in an effort to limit him is the wrong way to go about controlling violence.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: xferlawstudent on April 27, 2007, 04:04:57 PM
I agree, but Conservatives must realize that they use this freedom is priceless argument with respect to the 2d Amendment but flip out when liberals use it to criticize the Patriot Act or Miranda Rights, or whatever else. 



Re: Is the right to bear arms worth the death of 33 innocent people?


Yes.

Bad things happen. They will always happen. To restrict the rights of the overall, law abiding, decent population of a nation to prohibit or at least limit the actions of a few psychopaths is wrong. We don't need "stricter, much stricter, gun controls." We need better human controls. An unstable, unpredictable, violent individual is going to cause harm no matter what. To cut the rights of everybody in an effort to limit him is the wrong way to go about controlling violence.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: roses are for the rich on May 02, 2007, 04:07:39 AM

Re: Is the right to bear arms worth the death of 33 innocent people?


Yes.

Bad things happen. They will always happen. To restrict the rights of the overall, law abiding, decent population of a nation to prohibit or at least limit the actions of a few psychopaths is wrong. We don't need "stricter, much stricter, gun controls." We need better human controls. An unstable, unpredictable, violent individual is going to cause harm no matter what. To cut the rights of everybody in an effort to limit him is the wrong way to go about controlling violence.


What exactly do you mean, false dilemma?!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Flashman on May 02, 2007, 06:31:14 AM

Oh man, first of all, I didn't say gun control laws WOULD OR WOULD NOT help, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from?  I just aked how can you be so sure that gun control laws would not affect the murder rate at all?  I mean, aren't murder rates extremely low in countries with gun control laws?  What makes you think the same wouldn't happen here?  

I can give you several reasons.  First, and probably most important, we have a lot of guns in the U.S.  I've seen estimates of over 200 million guns, and stats that almost half of all people live in a household with a gun.  As a practical matter, we're never going to get all of the guns out of the hands of people, criminals or no.  Even if a comprehensive  and very strict national policy of gun control was enacted at this point it is not going to effect gun crime in any significant way.  We simply cannot go house-to-house collecting guns, which would be the only way to eliminate them.  Politically, of course, that would never happen anyway.

Next, it is useless to compare countries with strict gun control laws and low gun crime rates with the U.S.  I can think of no countries where this is true where the citizens have had relatively free access to firearms through the course of their history (feel free to correct me, I haven't done exhaustive research on that).  In the U.S., firearms have had a unique place in our culture from its inception that is so ingrained, it would be hard to come up with a similar example.  Two examples that I know of that I used to quote from my wanton liberal days of youth, Japan and Great Britain, have very different histories regarding citizen ownership of firearms; namely, that they don't have histories of citizen ownership.

So what's the answer?  As someone posted earlier, we should have background checks for history of mental illness and a ban on being able to buy guns if someone is ever involuntarily committed.  We should also have mandatory, and very stiff, penalties for commission of a crime with a firearm as a deterrent. 

As a controversial solution, I think that "gun free" zones around schools are not only useless, but counterproductive.  If you are a violent criminal bent on maximum destruction, do you open fire in a police station, or a school in a gun free zone?  Even the crazy ones seem smart enough to know that you don't go shooting in a place where people shoot back.  While I don't support everyone being able to carry a concealed weapon, I do think that it should be permitted and I do believe that had a couple of students been carrying a gun at Va Tech, the outcome might very well have been different.  Maybe not, too, but the victims certainly would have had a chance that they didn't have by not carrying.  Believe it or not, people can carry concealed weapons without being trigger-happy gun nuts, so I don't believe that CCW laws necessarily would breed more gun crime. I've seen several examples given in the past couple of weeks of individuals thwarting gun rampages before the gunman could kill more innocents.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: toasterking on May 02, 2007, 09:34:33 AM
(http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-secondamendment-gallery-835.jpg)
Title: As American as apple pie
Post by: amygdala on May 03, 2007, 08:08:18 PM
"As American as apple pie." That was how Italian newspaper Il Manifesto reportedly described the killing of 32 people and the suicide of the gunman in the Virginia Tech University campus that Monday. There is an overwhelming and very public outpouring of grief for the victims. The consensus seems to be this -- the gunman, a 23-year-old South Korean who migrated to the United States in 1992, was a disturbed youth who exhibited tell tale signs of violence and rage in his creative writings.

Granting that it was Cho Seung-Hui's psychological problems that may have prompted him to kill 32 people, people miss the bigger picture when they fail to ask how a psychologically disturbed youth was able to legally purchase the guns he used in the shooting. The answer is simple. In America, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms -- borrowed out of the Elizabethan era in England which granted Protestants the right to bear arms. Interpretations of the meaning of the right are numerous and of many perspectives. What does not seem to be controverted is the fact that, based on when the right to bear arms became part of the law of the United States, it was meant to address a situation where the people would be confronted with foreign aggression and the citizenry -- as a militia -- should be in a position to defend the country. This seems clear from the very wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the 1700s, when America was a country in its infancy and its ability to defend itself from another foreign ruler was fragile, the right to bear arms in order to maintain a mass-based militia made sense. But in this day and age, when the United States government owns and controls one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive -- and deadliest -- weaponry and defense systems in the world, is there really a need for an armed mass-based militia? The answer is obvious, isn't it? If the right to bear arms is taken in that context, then it becomes an obsolete concept. It is, therefore, not very surprising that the US courts came up with a new interpretation. In Rex v. Gardner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said: "Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

To my mind, this deflection from the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment is intentional or, at the very least, a subconscious justification. It is curious to note how this singular provision in the American Constitution seems to be responsible for the rise of a new economic power and political influence -- the gun industry. America, today, is the top supplier of guns and ammunition worldwide. In more ways than the average person can imagine, guns keep the American economy alive. Take away the right of the individual to bear arms and the culture that sustains these arms manufacturers die.

The "modern" definition, therefore, of the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the sustenance of this culture. If the right of the individual to bear arms is taken away, what reason will gun manufacturers have to continue making guns? To export them? To sell them in countries marked by internal conflict? That wouldn't look too good, would it? It would look too much as though America was merely exporting violence rather than propagating a culture that says every man has the right to defend himself with the use of a handgun. In short, the Second Amendment is both the proof and the reason to convince foreign countries to buy American-made arms. Yes, it is about business. It is about money.

If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer. When the legitimate market for its arms has been saturated, new markets must be developed. In many cases, it means supporting factions in foreign civil wars, rebellions and revolutions. And when there are no conflicts to fuel, well, things like the Iraq war are hatched. The sale of handguns to individual citizens is a very small percentage of this multibillion dollar business. But it is the backbone that holds the arms industry together. The Second Amendment tells the citizen you have the right to defend yourself with a handgun and goes on to build a mindset that the "right to defend" is fundamental and necessary. When the "right to defend" is then applied on a broader scale, as in the right to defend America from undemocratic forces or even to defend global democracy, the seed has taken its roots and it is not so difficult to convince the average American that the manufacture and sale of more sophisticated high-powered weaponry is indeed justified.

The saddest part of all this is how the right to bear arms has become a failure to its original objective. Instead, it has spawned a cocky culture in the micro and macro levels. It is part and parcel of the street gangs that are eternally trying to wipe each other out with their handguns. And it is as much a part of a nation that uses arms to preserve its way of life often in complete disregard and disrespect for other people's ways of life. I feel sorry for the innocent lives lost in Virginia Tech University. I feel sorry for those they left behind. Yes, Cho Seung-Hui shot all those people. But, if we think hard about it, the right to bear arms played a huge role in placing those guns in his hand.
Title: Re: \"Right To Bear Arms\"
Post by: Cory on May 03, 2007, 08:49:08 PM
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5942/adbusted1hu2.jpg)
Title: Queen Visits the Colonies
Post by: byproxy on May 03, 2007, 09:39:20 PM

[...] In America, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms -- borrowed out of the Elizabethan era in England which granted Protestants the right to bear arms. Interpretations of the meaning of the right are numerous and of many perspectives. What does not seem to be controverted is the fact that, based on when the right to bear arms became part of the law of the United States, it was meant to address a situation where the people would be confronted with foreign aggression and the citizenry -- as a militia -- should be in a position to defend the country. This seems clear from the very wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?
Title: Re: Queen Visits the Colonies
Post by: k k on May 03, 2007, 10:00:13 PM

Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?


Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.
Title: TEA WITH THE QUEEN
Post by: w e i s e r on May 03, 2007, 10:58:02 PM
The Queen-Bush meeting thing reminded me of this joke

While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people.

Bush asks how she knows if they're intelligent.

"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."

Bush watches as the Queen phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister, please answer this question: your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."

"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

Bush nods: "Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. Bush summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"

Bush poses the question: "Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?"

Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.

"Now lookee here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!"

And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb *&^%, it's Tony Blair!"
Title: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: mastercard on May 04, 2007, 08:18:14 PM

In America, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms -- borrowed out of the Elizabethan era in England which granted Protestants the right to bear arms. Interpretations of the meaning of the right are numerous and of many perspectives. What does not seem to be controverted is the fact that, based on when the right to bear arms became part of the law of the United States, it was meant to address a situation where the people would be confronted with foreign aggression and the citizenry -- as a militia -- should be in a position to defend the country. This seems clear from the very wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit: \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\"

In the 1700s, when America was a country in its infancy and its ability to defend itself from another foreign ruler was fragile, the right to bear arms in order to maintain a mass-based militia made sense. But in this day and age, when the United States government owns and controls one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive -- and deadliest -- weaponry and defense systems in the world, is there really a need for an armed mass-based militia? The answer is obvious, isn\'t it? If the right to bear arms is taken in that context, then it becomes an obsolete concept.

It is, therefore, not very surprising that the US courts came up with a new interpretation. In Rex v. Gardner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said: \"Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the \'people\' [or \'citizen\' or \'citizens\'] \"to bear arms in defense of themselves [or \'himself\'] and the state,\' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage \'bear arms\' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.\"

To my mind, this deflection from the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment is intentional or, at the very least, a subconscious justification. It is curious to note how this singular provision in the American Constitution seems to be responsible for the rise of a new economic power and political influence -- the gun industry. America, today, is the top supplier of guns and ammunition worldwide. In more ways than the average person can imagine, guns keep the American economy alive. Take away the right of the individual to bear arms and the culture that sustains these arms manufacturers die.

The \"modern\" definition, therefore, of the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the sustenance of this culture. If the right of the individual to bear arms is taken away, what reason will gun manufacturers have to continue making guns? To export them? To sell them in countries marked by internal conflict? That wouldn\'t look too good, would it? It would look too much as though America was merely exporting violence rather than propagating a culture that says every man has the right to defend himself with the use of a handgun. In short, the Second Amendment is both the proof and the reason to convince foreign countries to buy American-made arms. Yes, it is about business. It is about money.


The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla\'s mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.
Title: Re: "Right To Arm Bears"
Post by: Ronald Hyatt on May 04, 2007, 09:11:29 PM
(http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/collections/1991/images/df1991-133.gif)
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: rite on May 05, 2007, 05:20:02 AM

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla\\\'s mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


Interesting juxtaposition, mastercard! ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: fork in the ass on May 06, 2007, 11:53:27 PM
Indeed, master!
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: lawn on May 13, 2007, 08:37:32 AM

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


I completely agree! I did a simple Google search and found some troubling lines from this book,

Quote
A WOMAN RECENTLY ASKED HOW I could, in good conscience, write an instruction book on murder. [236]

"How can you live with yourself if someone uses what you write to go out and take a human life?" she whined.

I am afraid she was quite offended by my answer.

It is my opinion that the professional hit man fills a need in society and is, at times, the only alternative for "personal" justice. Moreover, if my advice and the proven methods in this book are followed, certainly no one will ever know.

The book is so effectively written that its protagonist seems actually to be present at the planning, commission, and cover-up of the murders the book inspires. Illustrative of the nature and duration of the criminal partnership established between Hit Man and its readers who murder is the following "dialogue" that takes place when the murderer returns from his first killing:

Quote
I'm sure your emotions have run full scale over the past few days or weeks.
There was a fleeting moment just before you pulled the trigger when you wondered if lightning would strike you then and there. And afterwards, a short burst of panic as you looked quickly around you to make sure no witnesses were lurking.

But other than that, you felt absolutely nothing. And you are shocked by that nothingness. You had expected this moment to be a spectacular point in your life. . . .

The first few seconds of nothingness give you an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh out loud. You break into a wide grin. Everything you have been taught about life and its value was a fallacy.
Title: Re: Queen Visits the Colonies
Post by: helga on May 15, 2007, 11:34:12 PM

Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.


LOL!
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: solicitor on May 26, 2007, 04:03:54 AM

[...]


The first few seconds of nothingness give you an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh out loud. You break into a wide grin. Everything you have been taught about life and its value was a fallacy.


The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: Lynn Cox on May 26, 2007, 04:54:34 AM

The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


??
Title: Re: As American as apple pie
Post by: Flashman on May 26, 2007, 07:25:47 AM
Yes, it is about business. It is about money.

If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer.

This kind of paranoid anti-business military-industrial complex rant is not very original or valid for a number of reasons.  The main reason is that you can use it to support any argument.  Take, for example, abortion.  One could make the argument that the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion is about business and money.  No abortions means no money for abortion providers, ergo there is a strong financial interest in making abortions legal.
 
   But that's a really stupid argument because it completely ignores the impact that Supreme Court justices (or the federal courts for that matter) have in making policy on their own.  Are you seriously suggesting that every time a court upholds the right to bear arms that the judges are calculating how much this is going to cost the arms industry?  They're not up for election, so campaign funding is moot.  You forget that China and the former Soviet Union (and now Russia), are major arms exporters and have been for decades despite not having individual gun ownership rights.  Can you explain this disparity or will you at least concede that you are overreaching big time?  Even if the SCOTUS banned individual gun ownership tomorrow, it would have zero impact on arms sales abroad.  The only thing that would stop that would be a ridiculous change in US policy or Congressional action.
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: Flashman on May 26, 2007, 08:42:20 AM

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. 

This is an absurd comparison.  That courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to mean individuals have the right to gun ownership is in NO way analogous to providing a blueprint to commit murder.  The only way your comparison works is if gun owners were specifically encouraged to go out and commit gun crimes along with their purchase of a firearm.  [Frankly I find your characterization of the First Amendment case questionable as well, but that's an argument for another day.]

I find it troubling that every time a right is found to have adverse consequences, there is a push to ban the right altogether. We have, what, roughly 40,000 auto accident deaths a year in this country, but a proposal that would ban the use of automobiles would be laughed out of the room. There are a lot of unfortunate outcomes of having a system of guaranteed rights, but that, frankly, is the price we pay for them.
Title: Re: As American as apple pie
Post by: interestoninterest on May 26, 2007, 08:44:06 PM

Yes, it is about business. It is about money.

If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer.

This kind of paranoid anti-business military-industrial complex rant is not very original or valid for a number of reasons.  The main reason is that you can use it to support any argument.  Take, for example, abortion.  One could make the argument that the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion is about business and money.  No abortions means no money for abortion providers, ergo there is a strong financial interest in making abortions legal.


I'd grant you that, Flashy! I mean, it's not ONLY about money, it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.
Title: Re: As American as apple pie
Post by: Flashman on May 27, 2007, 05:16:57 AM

I'd grant you that, Flashy! I mean, it's not ONLY about money, it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.

Well, I can't argue with that!  But I'd hasten to add that America doesn't have a patent on the violence by a long shot.  It's those crazy international soccer (excuse me, "football") fans that do. ;D
Title: Re: As American as apple pie
Post by: regulus on May 28, 2007, 02:02:37 AM

[...] it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.


It's not about "getting across the message that" -- the government actually acts as a facilitator in the process of people killing each-other as quickly and "neatly" as possible. Using knives to kill it's not effective when people engage in killing sprees, for instance.
Title: Re: As American as apple pie
Post by: Flashman on May 28, 2007, 05:46:29 AM

It's not about "getting across the message that" -- the government actually acts as a facilitator in the process of people killing each-other as quickly and "neatly" as possible. Using knives to kill it's not effective when people engage in killing sprees, for instance.

The same way the government "facilitates" thousands of deaths a year by allowing people to drive cars, or allows alcohol to be purchased by anyone over 21, or makes cigarettes legal, or makes it legal to consume food that is proven to lead to heart disease or obesity, or doesn't execute murderers and lets them back on the streets to kill again?  When you use a loaded term like facilitator, it makes it sound like you mean accomplice, which makes me think you need to take the tinfoil hat off and back slowly away from it.  Allowing individuals to own firearms is not the same as facilitating murder.

Also, why would you assume a gun ban would suddenly make people who would go on a killing spree resort to knives?  They would still use guns; they would just be illegally obtained guns instead of legally obtained ones.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: g e r u n d on May 30, 2007, 04:44:40 AM


The same way the government "facilitates" thousands of deaths a year by allowing people to drive cars, or allows alcohol to be purchased by anyone over 21, or makes cigarettes legal, or makes it legal to consume food that is proven to lead to heart disease or obesity, or doesn't execute murderers and lets them back on the streets to kill again? When you use a loaded term like facilitator, it makes it sound like you mean accomplice, which makes me think you need to take the tinfoil hat off and back slowly away from it. Allowing individuals to own firearms is not the same as facilitating murder.

Also, why would you assume a gun ban would suddenly make people who would go on a killing spree resort to knives? They would still use guns; they would just be illegally obtained guns instead of legally obtained ones.


1. Allowing people to drive cars, allowing access to alcohol to 21+ yos, making cigarettes legal, making it legal to consume food proven to lead to heart disease or obesity causes harm and/or death much less effectively and slowly than making guns available in the manner they currently are. You are right, though, not executing murderers and letting them back on the streets to kill again is just as dangerous.
2. Illegally obtained guns are much harder to be obtained than legally obtained ones. It's all a question of availability.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: IONLYKNOWY on May 30, 2007, 08:54:27 AM
What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America. 

Most gun crimes are committed by criminals who obtain guns through illegal weapon sales. 

You would have to be a pretty stupid criminal if you went and bought a gun and registered it in your name, then went and committed crimes with that same gun.

Criminals know that they will be caught if they do this, so they use someone elses gun.. most likely a gun that has been stolen.

Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns.  If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS. 

Drugs are smuggled now, and if guns become illegal to obtain, therefore making them hard to steal.. then illegal gun smuggling will shoot through the roof.  No pun intended.

As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.

And seeing how easy it is to cross the border illegally, due to almost zero border security.. guns would be smuggled just as easy or easier than drugs.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: live the american lie on May 30, 2007, 08:33:42 PM

What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America. 


Let's make sure that at least these killing sprees do not happen, then!

Quote

Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns.  If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS. 


Not really! Your "gun mentality" is twisting things to make it look like that! Why do you assume that people need so badly guns, in the first place? Why do you think people like guns just a little bit less than drugs?!

Quote

As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.


Criminals are encouraged to use guns (legally or illegally obtained) when they live in a society that promotes violence and artificially creates constructs about the necessity of having guns sold legally.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: caviard on May 30, 2007, 08:47:02 PM

[...] and if guns become illegal to obtain, therefore making them hard to steal.. then illegal gun smuggling will shoot through the roof. [...]


So according to you, we allow guns to be sold legally so that they can get stolen in order for them not to be smuggled?!
Title: Violence is the American Way
Post by: my stepson my lover on May 31, 2007, 05:11:32 AM
The American ideal of sexuality appears to be rooted in the American ideal of masculinity. This ideal has created cowboys and Indians, good guys and bad guys, punks and studs, tough guys and softies, butch and faggot, black and white. It is an ideal so paralytically infantile.

Why does a nation persist in celebrating violence as an honorable expression of disapproval? Let's not trivialize a horrible tragedy by pretending we can't make sense of it. "Senseless" sounds like "without cause," and requires no action. After an appropriate interval of dismayed hand-wringing, we can go back to business as usual. What takes guts is to own up: This event made perfect sense. Children model the behavior of adults, on whatever scale is available to them. Ours are growing up in a nation whose most important, influential men -- from presidents to film heroes -- solve problems by killing people. It's utterly predictable that some boys who are desperate for admiration and influence will reach for guns and bombs.

It may be perfectly clear to you that Nazis, the Marines, "the Terminator" and the N.Y.P.D. all kill for different reasons. But as every parent knows, children are good at ignoring or seeing straight through the subtleties we spin. Here's what they see: Killing is an exalted tool for punishment and control. Americans who won't support it are ridiculed. Let's face it, though, most Americans believe bloodshed is necessary for preserving our way of life, even though this means we risk the occasional misfire -- the civilians strafed, the innocent man wrongly condemned to death row. We have taught our children in a thousand ways, sometimes with flag-waving and sometimes with a laugh track, that the bad guy deserves to die. But we forgot something. Any of our children may someday be, in someone's mind, the bad guy.

Through merchandising and manipulation, we bully vulnerable, uninformed children into believing guns are cool, violent movies are cool, hate-filled lyrics are cool, bloody video games are cool, and smashing, crippling confrontations in sports are maybe not cool but at least fun to watch. We call upon teens and preteens to grow up too soon, before they can perceive the line between fantasy and reality, and then we sob and wring our hands and wonder what went wrong when they cross the line. Society is the biggest bully of all, shielding by 1st and 2nd Amendments, the purveyors of violence who profit at the expense of the human dignity.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: my stepson my lover on May 31, 2007, 05:17:09 AM
"Real men" carry "big sticks"

"That's not the Indian way. That's not the way of a man." A man is a warrior and a warrior is someone with a gun. And anyone who's studied Freud knows what a gun is.

What's the corollary to this position? If you're not a man, you must be a woman, right? Or should I say a squaw? The ultimate insult in our society is to call someone gay -- i.e., to question his manhood. The issue comes up over and over in popular culture, where our heroes solve their problems with guns and fists.

Insecure masculinity has been a major force in history. Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. "But he was a man!" a trembling Richard M. Nixon affirmed of Theodore Roosevelt as Nixon concluded his rambling talk to the White House staff at the time of his resignation in 1974. There can be little doubt that the disgraced president had himself in mind as he referred to this particular predecessor.

Insecure masculinity was a major motivation for several other 20th century presidents, from Teddy Roosevelt at the century's beginning to Bill Clinton at its end. The Republican Roosevelt is a prime example. One reason for Roosevelt's concern about proving his manhood was his feeling of shame that his father had paid for a substitute to fight in his place during the Civil War. Roosevelt spoke of almost everything in sexual terms. He said war was a necessary arena for the display of "manly virtues" and frequently referred to adversaries as "eunuchs" or "impotent." And it does not take a Freudian imagination to understand why Roosevelt used the "big stick" as his metaphor for military might.

Similar anxieties appear to have driven John F. Kennedy and his disciple Clinton to try to show their manhood by treating women as disposable playthings. And it could be argued that Lyndon B. Johnson took the nation into a war that he knew would be disastrous partly out of a desire to prove his manhood. "There's not anything that'll destroy you as quick as pulling out," Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell in 1964. "They'll forgive you anything except being weak. We've got to conduct ourselves like men." As had Roosevelt, Johnson often described male opponents of his war policy by names that indicated they were like women.

The macho mouths whose combat experience most often consists of battles for talk-show ratings would have you believe that it takes great courage to bang the drums of war, whereas it is cowardly to speak the language of peace and diplomacy. I'm sick and tired of those old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. You know that male private part Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have not been in a war and will not fight in this one they are planning. George W. Bush hasn't been in a war either, of course. He dodged Vietnam by enlisting for a cushy stateside position in the National Guard. So much for America's brave and bold leaders as the new century unfolds.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: IONLYKNOWY on May 31, 2007, 08:28:47 AM
way to copy and paste, retard..

www.bluecorncomics.com/usmacho.htm


alright, you go through life without a weapon to protect your family.. but if you step in my house intending to do harm to my family, don't expect to live to tell about it.. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: IONLYKNOWY on May 31, 2007, 08:34:20 AM

What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America. 


Let's make sure that at least these killing sprees do not happen, then!

Quote

Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns.  If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS. 


Not really! Your "gun mentality" is twisting things to make it look like that! Why do you assume that people need so badly guns, in the first place? Why do you think people like guns just a little bit less than drugs?!

Quote

As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.


Criminals are encouraged to use guns (legally or illegally obtained) when they live in a society that promotes violence and artificially creates constructs about the necessity of having guns sold legally.

Yes yes I know that life imitates art.. BUT, a gun is an effective deadly weapon.. it is small and can be concealed.. it has a long range so you dont have to be close to your target.. and the intimidation factor is also there.

Even if criminals were encouraged not to use guns, they still would.  What else would they use when they are robbing you and your family?  A paper cutter?  An RPG?  What?

What would you use if you wanted to rob someone?

You probably have never been robbed or rapped before have you... if you had, you might have a different view..

Criminals will always want to use guns, and they will always have access to them, through illegal gun sales and smuggling.  If they have guns, and they know you don't have guns.. then this will only embolden them.

If criminals have guns, then I want to have the right to have a gun.  It is my constitutional right.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: internist on June 02, 2007, 11:51:54 PM

[...] and if guns become illegal to obtain, therefore making them hard to steal.. then illegal gun smuggling will shoot through the roof. [...]


So according to you, we allow guns to be sold legally so that they can get stolen in order for them not to be smuggled?!


This guy/gal is indeed a dumb @ # ! *, caviard!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: christy on June 03, 2007, 01:12:52 AM

"Real men" carry "big sticks"

"That's not the Indian way. That's not the way of a man." A man is a warrior and a warrior is someone with a gun. And anyone who's studied Freud knows what a gun is.

What's the corollary to this position? If you're not a man, you must be a woman, right? Or should I say a squaw? The ultimate insult in our society is to call someone gay -- i.e., to question his manhood. The issue comes up over and over in popular culture, where our heroes solve their problems with guns and fists.

Insecure masculinity has been a major force in history. Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. "But he was a man!" a trembling Richard M. Nixon affirmed of Theodore Roosevelt as Nixon concluded his rambling talk to the White House staff at the time of his resignation in 1974. There can be little doubt that the disgraced president had himself in mind as he referred to this particular predecessor.

Insecure masculinity was a major motivation for several other 20th century presidents, from Teddy Roosevelt at the century's beginning to Bill Clinton at its end. The Republican Roosevelt is a prime example. One reason for Roosevelt's concern about proving his manhood was his feeling of shame that his father had paid for a substitute to fight in his place during the Civil War. Roosevelt spoke of almost everything in sexual terms. He said war was a necessary arena for the display of "manly virtues" and frequently referred to adversaries as "eunuchs" or "impotent." And it does not take a Freudian imagination to understand why Roosevelt used the "big stick" as his metaphor for military might.

Similar anxieties appear to have driven John F. Kennedy and his disciple Clinton to try to show their manhood by treating women as disposable playthings. And it could be argued that Lyndon B. Johnson took the nation into a war that he knew would be disastrous partly out of a desire to prove his manhood. "There's not anything that'll destroy you as quick as pulling out," Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell in 1964. "They'll forgive you anything except being weak. We've got to conduct ourselves like men." As had Roosevelt, Johnson often described male opponents of his war policy by names that indicated they were like women.

The macho mouths whose combat experience most often consists of battles for talk-show ratings would have you believe that it takes great courage to bang the drums of war, whereas it is cowardly to speak the language of peace and diplomacy. I'm sick and tired of those old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. You know that male private part Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have not been in a war and will not fight in this one they are planning. George W. Bush hasn't been in a war either, of course. He dodged Vietnam by enlisting for a cushy stateside position in the National Guard. So much for America's brave and bold leaders as the new century unfolds.


So basically Americans fear they'll judged they have no male private part in case they restrict themselves from legal gun ownership?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: thomson west on June 04, 2007, 11:13:02 PM

The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


??


Exactly, it's not clear why the OP makes such a comparison .. the "analogy" is not at all correct, in that when you marry someone to make him/her an American citizen you increase by one the number of people of this country, while when you "hit" someone you reduce by one that number.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: razorlaw on June 12, 2007, 02:51:07 AM

So basically Americans fear they'll judged they have no male private part in case they restrict themselves from legal gun ownership?


Something along those lines, christy, although I would not put it exactly in the words you did :)
Title: Re: Violence is the American Way
Post by: m o t h e r b o a r d on June 16, 2007, 04:58:50 PM

Through merchandising and manipulation, we bully vulnerable, uninformed children into believing guns are cool, violent movies are cool, hate-filled lyrics are cool, bloody video games are cool, and smashing, crippling confrontations in sports are maybe not cool but at least fun to watch. We call upon teens and preteens to grow up too soon, before they can perceive the line between fantasy and reality, and then we sob and wring our hands and wonder what went wrong when they cross the line. Society is the biggest bully of all, shielding by 1st and 2nd Amendments, the purveyors of violence who profit at the expense of the human dignity.


Amen! Couldn't have said it better!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: so leb dein leben on June 20, 2007, 01:01:20 AM

[...] I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: mas on June 23, 2007, 05:19:37 PM

$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


lol ;)
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: Non Je Ne Regrette Rien on June 26, 2007, 06:58:20 PM

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3435/imageds4fh1.jpg)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: synastry on June 26, 2007, 07:04:22 PM
So basically it was on "aiding and abetting" rather than first amendment grounds that they ruled in favor of Rice?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: derkaiser on June 28, 2007, 06:37:30 PM
So basically it was on "aiding and abetting" rather than first amendment grounds that they ruled in favor of Rice?

Well, no. They had to side with Rice (and they did) on both grounds, because one cannot be criminally liable for behaviors (i.e. writing a book) protected by the First Amendment.  It's been a while since I read the case, but I believe they were able to get around the First Amendment road block by determining that "Hit Man" was a form of unprotected speech -- i.e. it was an imminent incitement to violence.

Once it was determined that the speech at issue was unprotected, Paladin could then be held criminally liable for publishing without there being a constitutional issue.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: kmpnj on June 29, 2007, 09:50:09 AM
One thing that has always bothered me with 2nd Amendment debates, as fascinating as I find them, is one argument pro-gun control people make that the 2nd Amendment was enacted so that people could raise militias for the defense of the country.

Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the right to raise an army and provide for the national defense.  Article II of the Constitution gives the Executive the Commander in Chief power.  I think, as law students, we can all agree on this, right?

So, here's my question...Since Art. I gives Congress the right to raise an army and provide for the national defense and Congress is designed to be representative of the people, why would you need the 2nd Amendment to provide the people with the right to raise their own militias?  Wouldn't that be repetitive?  Especially since Art. I came before the 2nd Amendment.

It would seem to me that the 2nd Amendment shows that the founders knew what we seem to have forgotten in the current "Government as mommy/daddy/welfare provider" state that is the United States. That in order to protect this nation from devolving into tyranny, it is vital that the people be armed, so that they can protect themselves against government tyranny.  This is especially so when the 2nd Amendment (indeed, the entire bill of rights) is taken in context.  The Bill of Rights arose as a compromise between those who wanted the Constitution to be ratified as was originally drafted (sans BOR) and those who felt that the Constitution, as originally drafted, was lacking in protection of individual rights.  The Bill of Rights was created as a compact between the federal government and individuals, guaranteeing the rights of the individual that the government could not encroach upon.  Again, it is important to remember the context in which this event occurred.  The United States had just emancipated itself from British rule.  The Bill of Rights was enacted to prevent the Federal government from behaving in a manner similar to King George's British government.  One of the methods of controlling the colonies was to prevent colonials from arming themselves.  The only people in Colonial America who really had guns were those on the frontier and those who fought with the British in the French and Indian Wars, which were largely the ones who fought in the Revolutionary War.

Based on the Historical Context of the Bill of Rights' ratification period, it would seem to me that the 2nd Amendment would largely be meant as a mechanism through which individuals have the right to arm themselves for protection against government tyranny.  Now, granted, as society has evolved, we have largely found other ways to prevent government tyranny, mostly through the ballot box.  However, just because we, largely, no longer choose to enter into armed conflict with the government, does not mean we forfeit the right that that amendment guarantees, which is the right to arm ourselves.  Just as I still have the right to consume alcoholic beverages, without interference from the federal government, even though I no longer choose to do so.

As for the lack of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment goes, the DC circuit, this past spring, ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, thereby creating a split in opinion among the circuits.  I believe this matter is on the Court's calendar next term, so it should be interesting to see how the Roberts Court deals with this issue.

Lastly, from a practical standpoint, the problem with gun violence is caused, largely, by criminals.  Most criminals don't go into Wal-Mart or any other commercial dealer of firearms to purchase guns to use in criminal acts.  They go to Manny who sells them from the trunk of his 68 Impala.  Manny's guns (or whoever the local gun dealer is) have the added advantage of having the serial numbers burned off with acid and having the firing pin and cylinder filed down to take away any marks on the shell casings which would lead police to distinguish a .40 caliber round that came from, say, a Smith and Wesson versus a .40 caliber round that came from a Glock, thus hindering police investigation.  Therefore, it would seem to me, that if we banned guns tomorrow, the people we don't want to have guns (criminals) would still be able to purchase an AR-15 or AK 47 from Manny, the local gun dealer.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: The Decider on June 29, 2007, 11:39:48 AM
One thing that has always bothered me with 2nd Amendment debates, as fascinating as I find them, is one argument pro-gun control people make that the 2nd Amendment was enacted so that people could raise militias for the defense of the country.

Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the right to raise an army and provide for the national defense.  Article II of the Constitution gives the Executive the Commander in Chief power.  I think, as law students, we can all agree on this, right?

So, here's my question...Since Art. I gives Congress the right to raise an army and provide for the national defense and Congress is designed to be representative of the people, why would you need the 2nd Amendment to provide the people with the right to raise their own militias?  Wouldn't that be repetitive?  Especially since Art. I came before the 2nd Amendment.

It would seem to me that the 2nd Amendment shows that the founders knew what we seem to have forgotten in the current "Government as mommy/daddy/welfare provider" state that is the United States. That in order to protect this nation from devolving into tyranny, it is vital that the people be armed, so that they can protect themselves against government tyranny.  This is especially so when the 2nd Amendment (indeed, the entire bill of rights) is taken in context.  The Bill of Rights arose as a compromise between those who wanted the Constitution to be ratified as was originally drafted (sans BOR) and those who felt that the Constitution, as originally drafted, was lacking in protection of individual rights.  The Bill of Rights was created as a compact between the federal government and individuals, guaranteeing the rights of the individual that the government could not encroach upon.  Again, it is important to remember the context in which this event occurred.  The United States had just emancipated itself from British rule.  The Bill of Rights was enacted to prevent the Federal government from behaving in a manner similar to King George's British government.  One of the methods of controlling the colonies was to prevent colonials from arming themselves.  The only people in Colonial America who really had guns were those on the frontier and those who fought with the British in the French and Indian Wars, which were largely the ones who fought in the Revolutionary War.

Based on the Historical Context of the Bill of Rights' ratification period, it would seem to me that the 2nd Amendment would largely be meant as a mechanism through which individuals have the right to arm themselves for protection against government tyranny.  Now, granted, as society has evolved, we have largely found other ways to prevent government tyranny, mostly through the ballot box.  However, just because we, largely, no longer choose to enter into armed conflict with the government, does not mean we forfeit the right that that amendment guarantees, which is the right to arm ourselves.  Just as I still have the right to consume alcoholic beverages, without interference from the federal government, even though I no longer choose to do so.

As for the lack of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment goes, the DC circuit, this past spring, ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, thereby creating a split in opinion among the circuits.  I believe this matter is on the Court's calendar next term, so it should be interesting to see how the Roberts Court deals with this issue.

Lastly, from a practical standpoint, the problem with gun violence is caused, largely, by criminals.  Most criminals don't go into Wal-Mart or any other commercial dealer of firearms to purchase guns to use in criminal acts.  They go to Manny who sells them from the trunk of his 68 Impala.  Manny's guns (or whoever the local gun dealer is) have the added advantage of having the serial numbers burned off with acid and having the firing pin and cylinder filed down to take away any marks on the shell casings which would lead police to distinguish a .40 caliber round that came from, say, a Smith and Wesson versus a .40 caliber round that came from a Glock, thus hindering police investigation.  Therefore, it would seem to me, that if we banned guns tomorrow, the people we don't want to have guns (criminals) would still be able to purchase an AR-15 or AK 47 from Manny, the local gun dealer.

That is the exact argument I have tried to use with with friends on numerous occasions. The problem however is that most people these days are more concerned with gun violence rather than the threat of a tyrannical government. So, the argument gets moved into mitigating gun violence (statistics of other counties after gun bans, etc.).

Personally, I think we got it wrong a long time ago, and the Swiss system is probably more in line with what the founding fathers would have wanted.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ad astra per alia porci on July 03, 2007, 07:28:05 PM

Manny's guns (or whoever the local gun dealer is) have the added advantage of having the serial numbers burned off with acid and having the firing pin and cylinder filed down to take away any marks on the shell casings which would lead police to distinguish a .40 caliber round that came from, say, a Smith and Wesson versus a .40 caliber round that came from a Glock, thus hindering police investigation.


Does acid really work? I think they drill the numbers off ..
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: BKA on July 03, 2007, 08:25:40 PM
Wow, interesting username, ad astra, what does it mean?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: xferlawstudent on July 03, 2007, 11:51:14 PM
to the stars on the wings of a pig.  it has something to do with Steinbeck.  It might be in the Grapes of Wrath.


Wow, interesting username, ad astra, what does it mean?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Nicorino on July 04, 2007, 05:46:44 PM

Manny's guns (or whoever the local gun dealer is) have the added advantage of having the serial numbers burned off with acid and having the firing pin and cylinder filed down to take away any marks on the shell casings which would lead police to distinguish a .40 caliber round that came from, say, a Smith and Wesson versus a .40 caliber round that came from a Glock, thus hindering police investigation.


Does acid really work? I think they drill the numbers off ..


kmnpj must know smth about the matter, I mean his information is so detailed that it's unlikely he's making it all up
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: hephaistion on July 20, 2007, 08:14:09 PM

The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


??


Exactly, it's not clear why the OP makes such a comparison .. the "analogy" is not at all correct, in that when you marry someone to make him/her an American citizen you increase by one the number of people of this country, while when you "hit" someone you reduce by one that number.


That post did not deserve to be dignified with any response whatsoever! The OP must have been drunk or something!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: quantum on July 21, 2007, 10:19:45 PM
The primary legitimate substantive argument cited to oppose further gun regulations is that such regulations will only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain weapons, especially for purposes of self-defense, whereas criminals will continue to gain access to weapons regardless of the law... This assertion contains within it one fallacy -- that one can readily differentiate between "good guys" and "bad guys"; stated differently, the assumption is that guns in the hands of good guys are good, whereas guns in the hands of bad guys are bad...

Yet statistics on gun-related deaths show that this Hollywood-cultivated dichotomy bears little relation to reality for most gun-related homicides, in that many homicides are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background and who are known to the victims. Almost half of all murders (two-thirds of which were committed with guns) are committed by an acquaintance or relative of the victim. More than a quarter of all women murdered were killed by boyfriends or husbands. Arguments precipitate 32% of all murders. Only 21% of murders result from the commission fo felonies such as arson, robbery, and the like... The good guy/bad guy myth evaporates when most murders are examined. 

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: one shoe on July 23, 2007, 01:17:17 AM

Wow, interesting username, ad astra, what does it mean?


to the stars on the wings of a pig.  it has something to do with Steinbeck.  It might be in the Grapes of Wrath.


A lumbering soul but trying to fly.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: c a u s u a l on July 24, 2007, 06:47:08 AM
Interesting avatar, one shoe, is it dunes in Death Valley?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Elaine Cho on August 07, 2007, 07:35:16 PM
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-08/31702368.jpg)
Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: gainsay on August 12, 2007, 02:08:44 AM
LOL Jaime! ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: recriminate on August 19, 2007, 01:24:58 AM
Interesting avatar, gainsay, what is it?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: galleon on August 21, 2007, 08:12:28 PM

Interesting avatar, gainsay, what is it?


I think it's the Ouroboros, the snake or dragon devouring its own tail -- the alchemical symbol par excellence of eternal recurrence.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: largess on August 24, 2007, 05:13:40 AM

"Real men" carry "big sticks"

"That's not the Indian way. That's not the way of a man." A man is a warrior and a warrior is someone with a gun.


http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,4745.msg63590.html#msg63590
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: one hot summer night on August 27, 2007, 01:16:55 AM

I think it's the Ouroboros, the snake or dragon devouring its own tail -- the alchemical symbol par excellence of eternal recurrence.


(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.
Title: Re: \\\"Right To Bear Arms\\\"
Post by: bro in law on August 27, 2007, 03:22:14 AM

(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man s unconsciousness.


Alchemically, the ouroboros is also used as a purifying glyph. Ouroboros was and is the name for the Great World Serpent, encircling the Earth. The word Ouroboros is really a term that describes a similar symbol which has been cross-pollinated from many different cultures. Its symbolic connotation from this owes to the returning cyclical nature of the seasons; the oscillations of the night sky; self-fecundation; disintegration and re-integration; truth and cognition complete; the Androgyny; the primeval waters; the potential before the spark of creation; the undifferentiated; the Totality; primordial unity; self-sufficiency, and the idea of the beginning and the end as being a continuous unending principle.

Ouroboros represents the conflict of life as well in that life comes out of life and death. My end is my beginning. In a sense life feeds off itself, thus there are good and bad connotations which can be drawn. It is a single image with the entire actions of a life cycle -- it begets, weds, impregnates, and slays itself, but in a cyclical sense, rather than linear. Thus, it fashions our lives to a totality more towards what it may really be -- a series of movements which repeat. As Above, So Below -- we are born from nature, and we mirror it, because it is what man wholly is a part of. It is this symbolic rendition of the eternal principles that are presented in the Emerald Tablets of Thoth.

(http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/8320/ouroboros2tq1.jpg)
The Ouroboros connects the Above and Below

Born from this symbolic notion, there are many different cultures which share this great dragon-serpent symbol (the serpent Jormungandr, from the myth of Yggdrasil, is just one). There are some cultures that see the image as not being beneficial, but evil -- like Satan. It is of interest to mention that a symbol such as that of the Ouroboros is something which Carl Jung refers to as an archetype; it seems to makes its way into our conscious mind time and time again in varying forms. The 19th century German chemist named Kekule dreamed of a snake with its tail in its mouth one day after dosing off. He had been researching the molecular structure of benzene, and was at a stop point in his work until after waking up he interpreted the dream to mean that the structure was a closed carbon ring. This was the breakthrough he needed.

There is another mention of the Ouroboros laying at the edge of the sea which surrounds the world, called Pontus. The Ouroboros encircles the Universe; everything known and unknown is encompassed in its embracing coils, supporting and maintaining the earthly balance. It injects life into death and death into budding life. Its form suggests immobility with its locked jaws upon itself, yet at the same time it pushes the insistent message of perpetual movement through its twined coils. The first clues to this symbol go back as far as 1600-1700 BC in Egypt. Through the years the serpent moved on to the Phoenicians and the Greeks-who were what gave it the name Ouroboros. The Greek translation means, tail eater.

It has a strong relation to what is known as the Androgyny. The androgyny is the united male and female principles together. This is the prime primordial end to human endeavor, the reunion which births totality and creation. It is not unlike the idea of androgyny, which is a duality complete. A return to wholeness.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: palimpsest on August 28, 2007, 02:50:44 AM

[...] It is not unlike the idea of androgyny, which is a duality complete. [...]


Litotes is sometimes the whole point of the discussion.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: wont on September 02, 2007, 10:59:46 PM

[...] It is not unlike the idea of androgyny, which is a duality complete. [...]


Litotes is sometimes the whole point of the discussion.


Interesting avatar, palimpsest -- does it symbolize anything, or it's just some picture without any special meaning?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: s o l i l o q u y on September 05, 2007, 02:47:52 AM

Interesting avatar, palimpsest -- does it symbolize anything, or it's just some picture without any special meaning?


(http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6607/untitledyg9.jpg)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: internet on September 09, 2007, 02:19:07 AM
So what the deal is with the candy kiss effect?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Todd on September 25, 2007, 03:03:08 PM
Simply put, we should search mental records for gun buyers. I see nothing wrong with a 3 day waiting period to help prevent passion crimes. We should crack down on illegal gun sales. And if gun dealer makes a mistake and sells to the wrong person, they should get shut-down.

But I beg to differ on the paintball and rubber bullet ideas. Wear a flak jacket and your basically immune to them because it's hard to hit somebody in the face or arm - they move around a bit more than the torso. Even with a flak jacket a .44 will hurt a ton, probably won't knock you down, but man it'll hurt. (the movies are full of hogwash, getting shot is unlikely to knock you down from the impact alone).

Where do you draw the line for mental records? Does extreme ADHD equal being disqualified? How about a social disorder that is easily treatable with medication?

Further, your comment about staying up after being tagged by a .44 magnum round is way off. After the inception of the 9mm Luger Parabellum, police and US Armed Forces found that the lack of stopping power was its biggest problem. If you had someone jacked up on a drug such as PCP, or even adrenaline, a non-fatal wound from a 9mm was never enough to actually put them down. This is why police forces/Coast Guard are almost all moving to the .40 S&W or .357 SIG. These are pistol rounds that will knock a person down. When you move into the realm of the .45 ACP or .44 Mag, it is incredible stopping power, though equally incredible kickback. While the movies are wrong in that a round won't send you flying back, I would love to see someone with Kevlar on and stay standing after a torso shot from any of the higher caliber pistol.

And lastly, in regard to Tortfesor's post, the point of having a Glock 17/19 (the popular 9mm models) is useful as the answer to problems like Cho. Criminal elements will always be able to obtain firearms, illegal or not. It seems absurd to not allow normal citizens (which I agree should be more regulated) the ability to defend against that element. I'm hardly a Red State 2nd Amendment True Believer, but there are a lot of bad people out there. Having a pistol or shotgun for defense purposes is not simply in the province of Montana living militia-members. If you were ever in a situation in which basic social services broke down such as after Katrina, when your life/life of loved ones was at stake, I have a feeling your rubber bullets line would go out the window.
Obviously Cho was someone that makes this nation's access to guns somewhat suspect. However, as I think it was noted above, this was one disturbed and crazy not so nice person. If not a Glock, why not a pipebomb or something equally destructive?

I agree with this, except that you have no clue about what a .45 etc will do. It'll probably stop a big man, but that's from the killing power. It's not going to knock you down if you have a vest, unless you stumble. It's simple physics, if it had enough energy to knock you down, it'd probably knock the shooter down too. (equal and opposite reaction)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: l o c u s on December 19, 2007, 04:45:41 PM

So what the deal is with the candy kiss effect?


I guess it's something to do with the notion of matter and antimatter merging. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: GinoJ on December 25, 2007, 01:07:19 PM
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-08/31702368.jpg)

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."


So how did it go, Elaine?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Todd on December 28, 2007, 10:36:38 AM
M-16s blow holes in tanks? That's some M-16. This violence will only stop when fathers start raising men and stop abandoning their children. Murders rarely come from intact families, the college murders excepted, but then, more people are killed daily in major US cities than in Iraq. Why?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: I Still Have a Pony on February 06, 2008, 03:25:35 PM

(http://www.kottke.org/plus/photos/20010314sxsw/justguns.jpg)

ONLY IN AMERICA!!!


It's really so sad!


Hopefully!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: GSSG on February 08, 2008, 01:28:08 PM

Babies don't need a vacation, but I still see them at the beach... it pisses me off! I'll go over to a little baby and say 'What are you doing here? You haven't worked a day in your life!'


LOL, I Still Have, I know what ya mean! ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: gsh on February 09, 2008, 12:28:03 PM

Wow, interesting username, ad astra, what does it mean?


to the stars on the wings of a pig.  it has something to do with Steinbeck.  It might be in the Grapes of Wrath.


A lumbering soul but trying to fly.


Intriguing username, one shoe - what's the story behind it?
Title: Company: Gunman, Virginia Tech shooter used same Web dealer
Post by: A. Joel on February 16, 2008, 03:11:24 PM

The gun shop owner who sold him the Glock 9 mm, one of the guns used at Norris Hall, said Cho easily passed a background check last month before buying the weapon.


Cho Seung-Hui walked into a gun shop five weeks ago, paid the £285 bill by credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. The pistol was one of two guns found carrying Cho's fingerprints after he fatally shot 32 people and then himself at Virginia Tech University.

John Markell, owner of Roanoke Firearms, yesterday confirmed his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March. "It was a very unremarkable sale," said Mr Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea that a purchase is suspicious." Mr Markell said it was not unusual for students to buy from his shop as long as they were old enough. The minimum age to buy a handgun in Virginia is 18. The South Korean-born Cho, 23, was a legal, permanent US resident and eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records.

The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and is one which pressure groups hotly defend. Guns, with some regulation, are widely available to buy across the US. This shooting shows that guns are the problem and Americans should not have the right to carry arms.


(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1892/38208210lv1.jpg)

DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) -- A site used to buy gun accessories by Steven Kazmierczak is owned by the same company that operates a site patronized by Seung-Hui Cho, the company said. Kazmierczak ordered two 9 mm Glock magazines and a holster for a Glock handgun from the Web site February 4, said a statement released by TGSCOM Inc. He received them February 12, two days before the NIU shootings, it said. "TGSCOM Inc. also operates the Web site used by Seung-Hui [Cho] to purchase a firearm used in the Virginia Tech shootings last April," the statement said. 

(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5313/artniushooterapkz4.jpg)

TGSCOM Inc. said it is assisting law enforcement in the investigation. Police had been looking for a laptop computer, and one was found in the room and turned over to investigators, DeKalb Travelodge manager Jay Patel told CNN. Earlier, Northern Illinois University's police chief described Kazmierczak as "an outstanding student" who reportedly stopped taking medication recently and became "somewhat erratic." Kazmierczak of Champaign, Illinois, opened fire on a geology class Thursday, shooting 21 people before killing himself. Five people were killed in addition to the shooter.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: To Those Who Do on February 17, 2008, 06:42:27 AM

DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) -- A site used to buy gun accessories by Steven Kazmierczak is owned by the same company that operates a site patronized by Seung-Hui Cho, the company said. Kazmierczak ordered two 9 mm Glock magazines and a holster for a Glock handgun from the Web site February 4, said a statement released by TGSCOM Inc. He received them February 12, two days before the NIU shootings, it said. "TGSCOM Inc. also operates the Web site used by Seung-Hui [Cho] to purchase a firearm used in the Virginia Tech shootings last April," the statement said. 

TGSCOM Inc. said it is assisting law enforcement in the investigation. Police had been looking for a laptop computer, and one was found in the room and turned over to investigators, DeKalb Travelodge manager Jay Patel told CNN. Earlier, Northern Illinois University's police chief described Kazmierczak as "an outstanding student" who reportedly stopped taking medication recently and became "somewhat erratic." Kazmierczak of Champaign, Illinois, opened fire on a geology class Thursday, shooting 21 people before killing himself. Five people were killed in addition to the shooter.


Looks like he's going to somehow "borrow" the fame of the St. Vale's Day massacre perpetrated by the South Side Italian Al Capone gang in Chicago in 1929.

(http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9638/alcaponebc4.jpg)

On the morning of Thursday, February 14, 1929 St. Valentine's Day, 5 members of George 'Bugs' Moran's gang, a gang "follower", and a mechanic who happened to be at the scene were lined up against the rear inside wall of the garage of the SMC Cartage Company in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago's North Side. They were then shot and killed by four members of Capone's gang (two of them dressed as police officers). When one of the dying men, Frank Gusenberg, was asked who shot him, he replied, "I'm not gonna talk - nobody shot me." Capone himself had arranged to be on vacation in Florida at the time.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Martha Michelle on February 17, 2008, 08:47:08 AM

(http://www.kottke.org/plus/photos/20010314sxsw/justguns.jpg)

ONLY IN AMERICA!!!


It's really so sad!


Hopefully!


???
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: To Those Who Succeed on February 20, 2008, 02:14:31 PM

Intriguing username, one shoe - what's the story behind it?


That's got to be a supershoe!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: opportunity on February 21, 2008, 09:27:38 AM
HAHAHA! ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: diveroll on March 27, 2008, 11:53:55 PM

Cho Seung-Hui walked into a gun shop five weeks ago, paid the £285 bill by credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. The pistol was one of two guns found carrying Cho's fingerprints after he fatally shot 32 people and then himself at Virginia Tech University.

John Markell, owner of Roanoke Firearms, yesterday confirmed his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March. "It was a very unremarkable sale," said Mr Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea that a purchase is suspicious." Mr Markell said it was not unusual for students to buy from his shop as long as they were old enough. The minimum age to buy a handgun in Virginia is 18. The South Korean-born Cho, 23, was a legal, permanent US resident and eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records.

The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and is one which pressure groups hotly defend. Guns, with some regulation, are widely available to buy across the US. This shooting shows that guns are the problem and Americans should not have the right to carry arms.


(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1892/38208210lv1.jpg)

DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) -- A site used to buy gun accessories by Steven Kazmierczak is owned by the same company that operates a site patronized by Seung-Hui Cho, the company said. Kazmierczak ordered two 9 mm Glock magazines and a holster for a Glock handgun from the Web site February 4, said a statement released by TGSCOM Inc. He received them February 12, two days before the NIU shootings, it said. "TGSCOM Inc. also operates the Web site used by Seung-Hui [Cho] to purchase a firearm used in the Virginia Tech shootings last April," the statement said. 

(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5313/artniushooterapkz4.jpg)

TGSCOM Inc. said it is assisting law enforcement in the investigation. Police had been looking for a laptop computer, and one was found in the room and turned over to investigators, DeKalb Travelodge manager Jay Patel told CNN. Earlier, Northern Illinois University's police chief described Kazmierczak as "an outstanding student" who reportedly stopped taking medication recently and became "somewhat erratic." Kazmierczak of Champaign, Illinois, opened fire on a geology class Thursday, shooting 21 people before killing himself. Five people were killed in addition to the shooter.


One thing I never understood is how these highway shooters firing shots simply disappear without actually taking someone down ..I mean, we sure know these "shootings" are different from the sniper spree of nearly 6 years ago (those attacks targeted people who were standing outside their cars) but still... not to mention that Virginia gets also reminded of a lot of emergencies they've had...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: jeffislouie on March 28, 2008, 12:16:36 PM

The gun shop owner who sold him the Glock 9 mm, one of the guns used at Norris Hall, said Cho easily passed a background check last month before buying the weapon.


(http://images.scotsman.com/2007/04/18/GNB.jpg)

Cho Seung-Hui walked into a gun shop five weeks ago, paid the £285 bill by credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. The pistol was one of two guns found carrying Cho's fingerprints after he fatally shot 32 people and then himself at Virginia Tech University.

John Markell, owner of Roanoke Firearms, yesterday confirmed his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March. "It was a very unremarkable sale," said Mr Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea that a purchase is suspicious." Mr Markell said it was not unusual for students to buy from his shop as long as they were old enough. The minimum age to buy a handgun in Virginia is 18. The South Korean-born Cho, 23, was a legal, permanent US resident and eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records.

The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and is one which pressure groups hotly defend. Guns, with some regulation, are widely available to buy across the US. This shooting shows that gun are the problem and Americans should not have the right to carry arms.

An interesting hypothesis, unfortunately not supported by anything but a topical look at gun violence.
Allow me to make mention of the truth that few wish to accept.
Gun laws don't stop people from getting guns.  Law abiding citizens don't get guns, while criminals still have ways of obtaining them.  The hard fact is that had UVA not passed a rule explicitly forbidding people with concealed carry permits having their guns on their person while on campus, this tragedy would have easily been averted by one singular student with a concealed carry permit and his pistol.
What, you say?  How could that be?
Due to the rule, no students had weapons (though some students, including some who came into contact with this psycho had concealed carry permits) and as such, no one could properly defend themselves.
When you criminalize gun ownership, only criminals will have guns.
Tragedies like this cannot and will never be avoided by strict gun laws.  To receive a concealed carry permit, you are required to attend and pass gun safety classes.  This makes the weapon less dangerous than the current laws, which have no such restrictions for the purchase of guns.  Proper legislation would include mandatory gun safety certifications.  Outlawing guns has the opposite effect on violent crimes than many hope it would.  Areas that make gun ownership illegal have higher instances of gun related violence and death because people are powerless to defend against a criminal with a gun.  When criminals cannot be sure that their intended victims may have a weapon on them, they are less likely to use theirs.
And then their is the whole hitler thing.  One of the ways Hitler was able to impose his progrom of anti-semitic insititutionalized murder was by making guns illegal, removing the ability of the people to stand up and fight.  The result is well documented.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
That's the framers talking, free from agenda's and lobbyists.  Wisdom.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: e v e n on March 29, 2008, 12:37:59 AM

One thing I never understood is how these highway shooters firing shots simply disappear without actually taking someone down ..I mean, we sure know these "shootings" are different from the sniper spree of nearly 6 years ago (those attacks targeted people who were standing outside their cars) but still... not to mention that Virginia gets also reminded of a lot of emergencies they've had...


You have a least 3 (three) different "events" in here ... it gets a little bit messy when you try to do too many things at a time ...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: vignette on March 31, 2008, 03:35:34 PM

Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?


Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.


The Queen of England is a real female dog indeed. The day after the death of Princess Diana, as a result of an "accident" at the Pont de L'Alma tunnel, a caller on the radio said that the royal family had ordered the hit out of fear that Diana's companion, the Arab Dodi Fayed might wield undue influence over the royal family of England. This scenario with variations and additions, not surprisingly, appears in most of the conspiracy theories about Di's death.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: call in on March 31, 2008, 11:42:40 PM

Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?


Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.


The Queen of England is a real female dog indeed. The day after the death of Princess Diana, as a result of an "accident" at the Pont de L'Alma tunnel, a caller on the radio said that the royal family had ordered the hit out of fear that Diana's companion, the Arab Dodi Fayed might wield undue influence over the royal family of England. This scenario with variations and additions, not surprisingly, appears in most of the conspiracy theories about Di's death.


Britain's former spy chief, in rare public testimony, dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" accusations by Mohamed Al Fayed that the agency plotted the car crash that killed Princess Diana. Sir Richard Dearlove, who directed the agency's special operations at the time the princess died in Paris in 1997, also scoffed at claims by Al Fayed that MI6 had acted against the couple on orders from Prince Philip, the queen's husband.

"It is utterly ridiculous," Dearlove said.

MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, had not mounted any operation directed at Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed — including surveillance or bugging, said Dearlove. He would know, he said, because as director of special operations from 1994 to 1999 he had to approve every such operation, which required the further approval of the foreign secretary. In addition, all such approvals were subject to an annual independent review by a senior judge. An operation mounted by rogue agents was "impossible," Dearlove said, and so was an independent action by agents in Paris.

"Out of the question. It is just not conceivable," he said, referring to his previous testimony about the management structure of the agency. "There is nothing, not a bit that acts independently or goes off and does its own thing. This does not exist," he said. His appearance before the inquest was an extraordinary exception to agency policy of neither publicly confirming nor denying any allegations about its activities. Just 20 years ago, the government refused to acknowledge the existence of the MI6 spy agency or MI5, its domestic counterpart. Dearlove, who fidgeted with a pen for much of his testimony, answered most questions calmly but showed occasional signs of irritation. He denied that MI6 had a file on Al Fayed — whose son died in the crash — or on driver Henri Paul, or the Ritz hotel in Paris.

Dearlove rebuffed a suggestion by Al Fayed's lawyer, Michael Mansfield, that someone might have regarded an alliance between Diana and the Fayed family as a threat to national security. He said the agency took no interest in their romance. "I am sorry to disappoint you," he said to Mansfield, "but no interest whatsoever." Al Fayed disputes the conclusion by French and British police that the crash on Aug. 31, 1997 in a Paris road tunnel was an accident. Testifying Monday, Al Fayed asserted his belief that the couple were victims of a complex conspiracy including Philip, Prince Charles, Diana's sister, the U.S. Central Intelligence agency and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others.

Dearlove, who headed the spy agency from 1999 to 2004, also denied a claim by former agent Richard Tomlinson about an alleged plan in the early 1990s to assassinate the late Slobodan Milosevic, then president of Serbia. He confirmed that one agent suggested the possible assassination of another Balkan leader, and that the idea was quickly "killed stone dead" at a low level. Dearlove appeared exasperated by Mansfield's persistent questions about Tomlinson's allegations, commenting at one point that "it seems to me we are a huge distance away from the subject of this inquest." Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker responded that he had deliberately allowed the lawyers much latitude. "These inquests have been very wide-ranging and many aspects of the evidence, many would say, have only marginal, if any, relevance to the issues that have to be decided," Baker said. "But the one matter that I have had very much in mind throughout is that one of the purposes of the inquests, perhaps particularly pertinent to this one, is to confirm or allay public suspicion."

Dearlove acknowledged that the "no assassination" policy was not put down in writing in training manuals during his time, but would have been communicated orally. Mansfield suggested that the incident raised questions about the effectiveness of MI6 management and whether all agents embraced the "no assassination" rule. Mansfield said he was asking the jury "to consider ... the possibility that elements within the security services in 1997 were responsible, not just for drawing up a plan, but the possibility that one or more of them may have been responsible for what happened."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Diana.php
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: C S on April 01, 2008, 01:19:31 AM

Britain's former spy chief, in rare public testimony, dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" accusations by Mohamed Al Fayed that the agency plotted the car crash that killed Princess Diana. Sir Richard Dearlove, who directed the agency's special operations at the time the princess died in Paris in 1997, also scoffed at claims by Al Fayed that MI6 had acted against the couple on orders from Prince Philip, the queen's husband.

"It is utterly ridiculous," Dearlove said.

MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, had not mounted any operation directed at Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed — including surveillance or bugging, said Dearlove. He would know, he said, because as director of special operations from 1994 to 1999 he had to approve every such operation, which required the further approval of the foreign secretary. In addition, all such approvals were subject to an annual independent review by a senior judge. An operation mounted by rogue agents was "impossible," Dearlove said, and so was an independent action by agents in Paris.

"Out of the question. It is just not conceivable," he said, referring to his previous testimony about the management structure of the agency. "There is nothing, not a bit that acts independently or goes off and does its own thing. This does not exist," he said. His appearance before the inquest was an extraordinary exception to agency policy of neither publicly confirming nor denying any allegations about its activities. Just 20 years ago, the government refused to acknowledge the existence of the MI6 spy agency or MI5, its domestic counterpart. Dearlove, who fidgeted with a pen for much of his testimony, answered most questions calmly but showed occasional signs of irritation. He denied that MI6 had a file on Al Fayed — whose son died in the crash — or on driver Henri Paul, or the Ritz hotel in Paris.


Why did Trevor Rees-Jones put on his seat belt just prior to the accident when Princess Diana, a devoted user of seat belts, did not? Why were two motorcycle policemen told to leave an ambulance taking one hour to reach a hospital, when 10 surgeons and an army of medical specialists were awaiting Diana's arrival? Is Henri Paul's behavior prior to the accident significantly inconsistent with published intoxication results? Why was there misinformation that the Mercedes was armor plated, supporting the further false assertion that it took emergency crews 1 hour to extract Diana from the car? Why did the French government reject the aid of Daimler Benz? Why didn't the Fiat stop and the driver and its occupants, if any, join the line of those seeking to file suit against the Ritz hotel? Why wasn't Diana put on a heart-lung bypass machine? The entire focus of the media has been and continues to center on the intoxication of Henri Paul. This shifts the attention of the world away from the car and motorcycle adjacent to the Mercedes Benz at the time of the accident. The best indication of Henri Paul's true level of intoxication is his behavior prior to the accident. During an accident, contents of the esophagus and stomach can be traumatically mixed with blood, to result in a false reading. A false reading is usually indicated where behavior is not in line with test results.

Henri Paul parked his car at 10:00 PM without incident. He walked without wavering or staggering. He spent the time before leaving the Ritz with Trevor Rees-Jones who when able to speak as the sole survivor of the accident remembered Henri Paul fit to have driven. Also do not discount the fact that Rees-Jones would not have allowed Henri Paul to drive if he saw Paul intoxicated, not to say "highly intoxicated." The Ritz hotel, owned by Dodi Fayed's father, has videos of Henri Paul immediately prior to leaving with Diana, Dodi and Rees-Jones. Not only is he seen walking and talking normally, he is face to face with both Dodi Fayed and Diana, both of whom independently would never have allowed him to drive if they smelled alcohol or noticed any glaze in his eyes. Dodi Fayed had a known fetish for professional qualified drivers. Couple this with the fact that Princess Diana, who had a similar fetish for wearing seat belts, did not find Henri Paul's driving or speed as one signaling danger; in which circumstance she surely would have put her seat belt on. If Trevor Rees-Jones first put on his seatbelt after entering the tunnel, one would certainly have to ask Trevor Rees-Jones why, if Princess Diana didn't do it too (for bodyguards won't do it unless they visualize immediate vehicular danger).

First reports after the accident had the Mercedes traveling at 60 mph and then that speed was moved to 80 mph then 100 mph and finally 120 mph. Was the purpose of such misinformation to support the assertion that Henri Paul was highly intoxicated? Again, there is lack of focus on the critical issues and questions. Was the Mercedes traveling at such a high rate of speed prior to entering the tunnel? Was the Mercedes Benz wavering? Did the Mercedes Benz strike any other car, person, motorcycle prior to entering the tunnel? Did the Mercedes Benz show any other evidences consistent with the driver's claimed high intoxication due to the reported blood tests? Why did the French government blatantly reject the immediate offer of Daimler Benz to send engineers to assess the accident? Why did it take so long to bring forward the evidence that parts of another car, which seemingly struck the Mercedes, were found? If Henri Paul struck the other car, wouldn't the car and its occupants have stayed around to file a police report so they could join the line of those ready willing and able to sue the Ritz hotel? The Mercedes Benz struck the concrete pillar in such a fashion that one would have to conclude that Paul was so intoxicated he was oblivious to causing severe injury to himself and others in the car. If such was the case, as stated, his driving would have been openly erratic and irregular prior to entering the tunnel. Would a blown tire cause the Mercedes to swerve in such a fashion as to suddenly strike the pillar as the car did? What role did the Fiat and motorcycle have in the accident? Isn't the fact that both are in hiding suggest that they had a material role in the accident?

Why the misinformation that the Mercedes was armor plated? Was it to support an inordinate time to get her out of the car? Why were there misleading original claims that it took 1 hour to extract her from the car? Was this claimed inordinate time to get her out of the car a mask for the malfeasance connective to the inordinate time to get her to the hospital due to the crawling ambulance ride - one so slow that it "lost" its police motorcycle escort? Did Diana require constant blood transfusions? Did the ambulance have enough blood for its 1-hour 6-mile 6-km journey? Did it have the right type of blood? Who made the decision to crawl to the hospital? Who on the outside from the awaiting team of 20-25 doctors including 10 surgeons was in contact with the ambulance? Did anyone convey the importance of getting Diana to the hospital quickly? Since the team of 20-25 doctors had so much time on their hands, didn't but one of them determine that Diana might benefit from placing her, on her arrival, on a heart-lung bypass machine that stands in for those organs during heart surgery. That would have helped save her particularly if Diana was gotten to the hospital immediately after the accident.
 
Any fair minded investigator would not have his or her focus on Henri Paul. His behavior and driving until the moment of the accident was normal. The focus should be on the car whose paint is on the Mercedes and the reports that it was accompanied by a motorcycle swerving in front of the Mercedes. These vehicles obviously had a culpable role since in normal circumstances, assuming Paul intoxicated, they would have stopped (and reported the haphazard driving of Henri Paul). That the car, its driver, occupants, if any, and the motorcyclist are no where to be found speaks clearly and convincingly of their role in the accident. Moreover, we would think that Daimler Benz could have offered valuable information and everyone would have benefited from their investigation and report. We would particularly think the front tires of the Mercedes Benz ought to have been immediately and carefully scrutinized. Couple this with the horrendous state of affairs regarding Diana's medical needs and care and you have a long line of people to be carefully questioned. Why is there no report of who was in the ambulance. How in the world could the ambulance's police motorcycle escort, two of them, lose a crawling ambulance? What type of blood did Diana need and what type and how much of it was in the ambulance? Who made the decisions? With billions of people throughout the world emotionally responsive to Diana's death, it would be the greatest sign of respect to the deceased for the world to compel the truth regarding those involved in her accident and death. Leaving important questions unresolved would dishonor her memory and as a consequence diminish the world tribute given her.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: jeffislouie on April 01, 2008, 10:03:10 AM
Who gives a crap?
Diana died because she was being chased by the pap and her driver was a yutz.
Why on earth would the royal family put a hit out on her?
Nonsense.  And a massive waste of money, time, and focus.  Plus, it is disrespectful to her memory.
Title: Diana was bugged by secret service in US
Post by: see ya on April 02, 2008, 01:20:55 PM
American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana's telephone over her relationship with a US billionaire, the Evening Standard learned back in 2006. She was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the US with tycoon Teddy Forstmann on advice from secret services, who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts. Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Mr Forstmann in the summer of 1997, saying it was too "dangerous" to take her sons there. Instead the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed. This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Dodi, where they died in a car crash.

(http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/dianaL070906_243x304.jpg)

The revelation from independent inquiries by the Evening Standard came as it emerged that Princess Diana's phone was bugged by US intelligence agencies on the night she died without the permission of the British secret intelligence services. Authoritative leaks say the extraordinary revelations were published by Lord Stevens and were bound to raise fresh questions about conspiracy theories. The US secret service was monitoring Diana's friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks. Mohamed Fayed has always insisted the princess and Dodi Fayed were murdered in a plot involving MI6 agents and US intelligence.

The Standard learned that Diana had agreed to a week's holiday with princes William and Harry in the US. She had accepted an invitation from her one-time American boyfriend Mr Forstmann to stay with him at his house in the Hamptons. But as she was travelling with the princes, she needed the trip to be cleared by the British security services. They surprisingly vetoed Diana's plans because of concerns about the security surrounding the billionaire's homes or perhaps a possible threat from elsewhere. The decision by the security services ultimately led to Diana striking up her friendship with Dodi and returning to the south of France to holiday with him. This led to her being in Paris on 31 August, the day of the crash. The Evening Standard also understood that US secret services had a number of secret files on Diana and her closest associates that are held by the national security agency. The files, which included reports from foreign intelligence - thought to include MI5 and MI6 - come under both top secret and secret categories. The reports could not be released because of "exceptionally grave damage to the national security". The documents on the princess seemed to have arisen because of the company she kept rather than through any attempt to target her. Diana enjoyed an intimate friendship with Mr Forstmann after her relationship with Prince Charles had broken down.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: hotel on April 03, 2008, 07:08:43 AM
In October 2003, the Daily Mirror published a letter from Princess Diana in which, 10 months before her death, she wrote about a possible plot to kill her by tampering with the brakes of her car, that her husband was planning 'an accident' in her car, brake failure and the like. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: nolover on April 07, 2008, 02:12:52 PM
During the five-month inquest witnesses were been questioned about a mysterious white Fiat Uno which some witnesses reported seeing shortly before the crash but which was never traced. Mohamed Al Fayed said the car belonged to paparazzo James Andanson, who did own a white Fiat Uno. Al Fayed said Andanson, who was found dead 2 years later in a burned-out car, was part of the murder plot and assassinated to cover up his role.

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: jeffislouie on April 08, 2008, 11:20:53 AM
In October 2003, the Daily Mirror published a letter from Princess Diana in which, 10 months before her death, she wrote about a possible plot to kill her by tampering with the brakes of her car, that her husband was planning 'an accident' in her car, brake failure and the like. 

Fascinating.  Are we to use the ramblings of an increasingly paranoid woman as evidence to a grand conspiracy?
Tell me, would it be better to cut her brakes and kill her in a more private moment, or was the point to somehow implicate the pap?
This conspiracy is ridiculous.  The pap was chasing her.  There is no evidence that the brakes on the car were tampered with.  The fact of the matter is, having a pap following can be dangerous.  Britney Spears is also hounded by these people.  A quick glance at one of the TMZ videos showing brit being chased around town buying cigarettes should show that being chased by money hungry pap is dangerous.
Her driver was a moron.  The pap pursued too hard.
Done and done.
Isn't it a waste of time to create a conspiracy theory without direct access to evidence?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: self scripted star on April 09, 2008, 02:39:50 PM

During the five-month inquest witnesses were been questioned about a mysterious white Fiat Uno which some witnesses reported seeing shortly before the crash but which was never traced. Mohamed Al Fayed said the car belonged to paparazzo James Andanson, who did own a white Fiat Uno. Al Fayed said Andanson, who was found dead 2 years later in a burned-out car, was part of the murder plot and assassinated to cover up his role.


(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1300/81227719vv0.jpg)
Title: Al-Fayed: BBC working with MI6
Post by: accosta on April 14, 2008, 12:54:34 PM

Britain's former spy chief, in rare public testimony, dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" accusations by Mohamed Al Fayed that the agency plotted the car crash that killed Princess Diana. Sir Richard Dearlove, who directed the agency's special operations at the time the princess died in Paris in 1997, also scoffed at claims by Al Fayed that MI6 had acted against the couple on orders from Prince Philip, the queen's husband.

"It is utterly ridiculous," Dearlove said.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PPkeFu2PRE&feature=related
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: sheraton on April 14, 2008, 02:12:58 PM
Dodi's father Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of the Harrods luxury store in London, says Diana and his son were killed by British security services on the orders of Philip, Queen Elizabeth's husband and father of Diana's ex-husband, Prince Charles. Al-Fayed alleges the killing was ordered because the couple were about to announce their engagement and Diana was pregnant. The royal family did not want the mother of the future king to have a child with his son.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: berate on April 15, 2008, 03:09:19 PM
Thanks for putting it for us in a few words, sheraton.. :)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: o l i v e r on April 16, 2008, 08:43:05 AM
No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: superpartner on April 16, 2008, 12:07:30 PM
It's not that difficult to figure that out oliver..
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: slightlybehind on April 17, 2008, 09:11:13 AM

[...]

Yet statistics on gun-related deaths show that this Hollywood-cultivated dichotomy bears little relation to reality for most gun-related homicides, in that many homicides are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background and who are known to the victims. Almost half of all murders (two-thirds of which were committed with guns) are committed by an acquaintance or relative of the victim. More than a quarter of all women murdered were killed by boyfriends or husbands. Arguments precipitate 32% of all murders. Only 21% of murders result from the commission fo felonies such as arson, robbery, and the like... The good guy/bad guy myth evaporates when most murders are examined. 


Very good point quantum!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ex nihilo on April 21, 2008, 12:24:12 PM
No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related


Interesting avatar oliver :)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ena on April 25, 2008, 09:45:29 AM

No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related


Dodi's father tells the official inquest what—and who—he believes killed the princess and his son.

(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8335/080219alfayedwidehorizoti9.jpg)

He is (a) a father grieving for his son; (b) a world-class social climber robbed of ultimate legitimacy by a cruel fate; (c) a passionate whistleblower exposing an unimaginable conspiracy; or (d) a nut case — or maybe all of the above. Yesterday Mohamed Al Fayed finally took the witness stand in London to present his own theories about why Princess Diana and his son Dodi (the princess's then-boyfriend) died in a 1997 Paris car crash. Al Fayed, the 75-year-old owner of Harrods department store, had pushed for the opportunity to speak at a much delayed official inquest into the deaths so that he could accuse virtually the entire British royal family as well as then-prime minister Tony Blair of being in on a vast plot to do in the lovers because Diana was pregnant with Dodi's baby — a claim other witnesses have said is impossible — and they planned to marry. The main villain, according to Al Fayed, is Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth's 86-year-old husband. "It is time to send him back to Germany, from where he comes," Al Fayed told the court. "You want to have his original name? It ends with Frankenstein." (In case your royal history is rusty, Philip's actual family is the Danish and German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.) Al Fayed accused Philip of being both a racist and a Nazi who masterminded the conspiracy in his role as head of "that Dracula family" — meaning the Windsors, not the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs. The goal was not only to get rid of Diana but also to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, "his crocodile wife" in Al Fayed's account. Charles and Camilla did indeed marry in 2005. "He's happy with that," Al Fayed said.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: alman on April 28, 2008, 11:19:58 AM
I'd be interested to read more on...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: upgrade on April 28, 2008, 01:02:19 PM

[...]

Yet statistics on gun-related deaths show that this Hollywood-cultivated dichotomy bears little relation to reality for most gun-related homicides, in that many homicides are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background and who are known to the victims. Almost half of all murders (two-thirds of which were committed with guns) are committed by an acquaintance or relative of the victim. More than a quarter of all women murdered were killed by boyfriends or husbands. Arguments precipitate 32% of all murders. Only 21% of murders result from the commission fo felonies such as arson, robbery, and the like... The good guy/bad guy myth evaporates when most murders are examined. 


Very good point quantum!

Yeah, real good point.  Talk about generalizations and kludging numbers together to further muddy up what meaningful information there may have been in the unnamed and probably unrepresentative statistical study. 

If this is what passes as a "good point" for a lawyer, this law school bit is going to be a breeze. =)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: brace on April 29, 2008, 10:43:19 AM
No need to get overexcited about the "right to bear arms." You have to remember that in Western democracies (especially America) the police maintains the public order with an iron hand. Just beacause you have a gun it does not mean that you will use it -- in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," as an insurance that were they attacked they'd be able to get back to the attacker. However, the possibility of being attacked in middle class neighborhoods is minimal and these people almost never put their guns to use. It is not like in some countries where there are virtually no laws and people set the record straight themselves. It is in these countries that the right to bear arms would prove detrimental. For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: localrealist on May 07, 2008, 02:08:39 PM
Interesting POV, brace!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: tbreckenridge on May 08, 2008, 01:09:59 PM

I'd be interested to read more on...


Sarcasm aside, it's indeed an interesting discussion alma!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Kile on May 08, 2008, 11:27:00 PM
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws.

In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.



Less guns, more safety.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: wcombs65 on May 09, 2008, 12:03:49 AM
Quote
We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.

What about protecting ourselves from governmental tyranny? Guns are not dangerous in the hands of law abiding citizens but in the hands of criminals. 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: like on May 11, 2008, 12:43:20 PM

No need to get overexcited about the "right to bear arms." You have to remember that in Western democracies (especially America) the police maintains the public order with an iron hand. Just beacause you have a gun it does not mean that you will use it -- in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," as an insurance that were they attacked they'd be able to get back to the attacker. However, the possibility of being attacked in middle class neighborhoods is minimal and these people almost never put their guns to use. [...]


You are overlooking school shootings... what about high school kids shooting their classmates and teachers?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: dru on May 15, 2008, 12:11:04 PM

[...] For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.


Don't get me started with ex-communist countries and their a s s h o l e politicians that you'd not even consider to wipe your d i c k with! When I was in the Czech Republic last year several politicians were caught in a scheme with them booking into hotels using faxes with Blue Chip company letterheads, such as British Airways or the BBC, and then request that the account be sent to the corporate head office for payment.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: revani on May 19, 2008, 11:36:21 AM

[...] in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," [...]


Are you kidding us when saying this, or is it that you are kidding yourself?

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: email on May 20, 2008, 06:46:45 AM

Play it here,

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/cube.htm


There's also a book I believe, isn't it?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: inner on May 22, 2008, 01:41:23 PM
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-08/31702368.jpg)

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."


Well, at least in Illinois, banning guns purchases is just a matter of time! And sicerely I don't get it what are they waiting for!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: jeffislouie on May 22, 2008, 06:10:08 PM
Yeah, the ban on firearms in Chicago has worked extremely well.
In Chicago, you are not allowed to legally own or posess a handgun.  It works great!  Law abiding citizens turned in their pistols and are now unarmed.
What is (not) surprising is that the criminals didn't turn in their guns and continue to own, posess, and use them.
Something like 36 shootings in APRIL ALONE!
Let's put on our lawyer hats for a moment and do the right thing by ignoring emotion and politics, you know - for a change.
36 people shot in April of 2008 alone in a City that has long forbidden handgun ownership.  Statistically, gun crimes are UP, not down.  Logically, it is fair to say that the bans don't work and haven't worked.
Why not?  Because criminals, safe in the knowledge that law abiding citizens can't fight back once they pull their 'gat', don't care about the law or the effect of their armed violence.
Now I don't think EVERYONE should own a firearm.  But I find it  rather silly to continue to punish those who abide by the law and give the clear advantage to those who don't.
The evidence is rather overwhelming unfortunately.  Restricting gun ownership by banning them only affects those who care enough to follow the law.  When an armed invader breaks into their home, instead of having the ability to defend themselves, they get shot.
If, and I know this must sound crazy to you anti-gun nuts, they lifted the handgun ban, criminals might think twice before brandishing their own weapon.  While you might see a spike in gun ownership in the short term, you'd also see a reduction in gun crimes with a slight uptick in fatal and not so fatal shootings in attempted rape, robbery or murder cases.  And quite frankly, I don't really care if a few gangsta's catch a bullet while trying to rob someone.
Look at the facts folks - cities with handgun bans have higher murder rates and higher gun violence rates than cities that have no such ban.  Criminals don't care about the laws.  Law abiding citizens do.  The reason I don't own a pistol is because it is illegal.  I've taken gun courses and been to the shooting range, but if a criminal breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I have to pray that I can whap him on the head with my driving iron while hoping he doesn't have a gun.  So who are we protecting with handgun bans?  The criminals or the citizens?  Clearly it is the criminals, who have no fear that the home they enter might have a gun-toting occupant who isn't about to let him get away, quite literally, with murder.
So while I have to deal with the fact that if someone breaks and enters my home, he may be armed and I cannot be, that pesky criminal can rest easy in the knowledge that I am not.
Gun bans aren't the answer.  They never have been and have always been the first step in overcoming the will of the people.  Hitler did it in Germany.  Others did it as well.
Let's try to think logically.  The tragedy at WV could have been completely avoided if those student with legal concealed carry permits had been allowed to carry.  Instead, as a result of silly politics, so many had to die and too few understand why.
The attacker in that case didn't care that the campus had been declared gun free.  As a matter of fact, it just might have been integral to the reason he chose to attack that campus.
Flame away, folks.  The dozens of dead kids in Chicago that will lose their lives this summer will really be happy that folks like you are the very reason they don't stand a chance.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: PG on May 24, 2008, 02:09:08 PM

Dodi's father Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of the Harrods luxury store in London, says Diana and his son were killed by British security services on the orders of Philip, Queen Elizabeth's husband and father of Diana's ex-husband, Prince Charles. Al-Fayed alleges the killing was ordered because the couple were about to announce their engagement and Diana was pregnant. The royal family did not want the mother of the future king to have a child with his son.


Oh please, sheraton, why would it be so terrible for the two princes to have a half-brother with a slightly-darker face? I mean, come on!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: nmla on May 27, 2008, 09:51:52 AM
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-08/31702368.jpg)

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."


Well, at least in Illinois, banning guns purchases is just a matter of time! And sicerely I don't get it what are they waiting for!
 

Procrastination, it's all about procrastination, sheraton!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: florida357 on May 29, 2008, 06:36:40 AM
The idea that control of the population's access to guns is beneficially linked to violent crime is one of the biggest political frauds of our lifetime.


After trillions of dollars and manhours spent, the government has absolutely no control over the possession or easy flow of illegal narcotics.  Assume for a moment that a ban on guns and the ensuing war on guns would be equally successful, this means that at least 50% of highschool students would have easy access to guns.  Career criminals would have no problem obtaining them.

In fact, this is what we see in places that have instituted strict gun control: total violent crime increases.  This includes at least DC, Chicago, England, and Australia.

It is simply a fraud perpetrated by ultra-liberals and peacenik idealists.  Notably, over 40,000 people die every year as a result of DUI, yet none of you would support a ban on alcohol.  Guns are related to only 30,000 deaths per year; less than 15,000 if you exclude suicide.  Even if you make the extremely egregious assumptions that criminals will become law abiding without access to guns, that they will in fact not have access to guns, that suicidal people will not jump off buildings or use simple and painless household cleaners as they do in Japan, there is still absolutely no reason to pursue a ban on guns before a ban on alcohol.
Title: British blue blood top 'Hottest Royal' list
Post by: intim on May 29, 2008, 09:57:36 AM

The Standard learned that Diana had agreed to a week's holiday with princes William and Harry in the US. She had accepted an invitation from her one-time American boyfriend Mr Forstmann to stay with him at his house in the Hamptons. But as she was travelling with the princes, [...]


CNN) -- They're young, fabulously wealthy and have blue blood coursing through their veins. Meet the "20 Hottest Young Royals" in the world, compiled by influential fortune tracker, Forbes magazine. The magazine used the "winning combinations of looks, money, and popularity on the Web" to come up with the list, it says.

(http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/europe/05/29/hottest.royal/art.princewilliam.afp.gi.jpg)

Only unmarried royals under the age of 35 were considered. The Forbes list proved to be a Royal knockout for British royalty. They came in the top four of hottest young royals in the world. With his piercing blue eyes and lantern jaw, reminiscent of a movie star, Britain's Prince William, perhaps unsurprisingly, came in at Number 1. The magazine describes him as having: "international intrigue and unparalleled media attention," combined with a "graceful public persona." Although his crown slipped somewhat recently when he was accused of abusing his newly-acquired flying skills by "joyriding." His relationship with girlfriend Kate Middleton is the subject of feverish speculation and an engagement announcement is eagerly anticipated by the British media. Seemingly always languishing in William's shadow, his brother, Prince Harry, placed second on the list.

Harry has always been known as the "bad boy prince" because of some rather unroyal behavior, such as brawling with paparazzi outside nightclubs and going to a fancy dress party dressed in Nazi regalia. However, he has latterly re-invented himself as the "Hero prince" after a tour of duty in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban in March. Sound off: Is Prince William the world's hottest young royal? William and Harry's cousins Zara Phillips and Princess Beatrice also came in at No. 3 and 4 respectively. The inclusion in the list should be good news for Princess Beatrice, who recently attracted unkind comments from Britain's newspaper columnists about her curvy figure and her dress sense. The sight of Beatrice, 19, pictured on holiday in a bikini proved too much for Daily Mail newspaper columnist Allison Pearson, who wrote: "Can't someone buy that girl a sarong? For her sake, as well as ours." This led to an angry counterattack from Beatrice's mum, Sarah Ferguson, who thundered at a news conference to promote a reality show: "Touch me, fine, but don't touch my children." The 20 featured on the list represent almost $60 billion in wealth and 15 royal lineages from around the world -- including some rather obscure names that even the most ardent royalist might be hard pushed to recognize. Princess Sikhanyiso of Swaziland anyone? Coming in at Number 20, the eldest daughter of King Mswati III of Swaziland, Africa's last absolute monarch, is currently a speech and drama major at Biola University in California.

A controversial princess who raises eyebrows in her homeland with her Western-style clothes and a decision to hold a drinking party to celebrate the end of a chastity decree in 2005 resulted in a beating with a stick. She is currently a Speech & Drama major at Biola University, California. Fourth in line to the Monaco throne, Charlotte Casiraghi, is the only non-Brit to make it into the top 5. A style icon, who is known for her impeccable taste in fashion and her good looks --much like her grandmother, Hollywood icon, Grace Kelly and mother Princess Caroline. Her brother, party prince Andrea Casiraghi, also makes an appearance on the list at Number 10. But it seems even his Hollywood lineage -- as well as his sun-kissed surfer looks were not enough to give William and Harry a run for their money in the pin-up stakes.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: pig floyd on May 29, 2008, 07:29:42 PM
It's statistically been proven [. . .]

Link?

While you're at it, link to statistics that show the opposite?

I'm lazy.

Title: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: p i l on May 31, 2008, 02:22:45 PM

American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana's telephone over her relationship with a US billionaire, the Evening Standard learned back in 2006. She was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the US with tycoon Teddy Forstmann on advice from secret services, who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts. Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Mr Forstmann in the summer of 1997, saying it was too "dangerous" to take her sons there. Instead the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed. This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Dodi, where they died in a car crash.

(http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/dianaL070906_243x304.jpg)

The revelation from independent inquiries by the Evening Standard came as it emerged that Princess Diana's phone was bugged by US intelligence agencies on the night she died without the permission of the British secret intelligence services. Authoritative leaks say the extraordinary revelations were published by Lord Stevens and were bound to raise fresh questions about conspiracy theories. The US secret service was monitoring Diana's friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks. Mohamed Fayed has always insisted the princess and Dodi Fayed were murdered in a plot involving MI6 agents and US intelligence.

The Standard learned that Diana had agreed to a week's holiday with princes William and Harry in the US. She had accepted an invitation from her one-time American boyfriend Mr Forstmann to stay with him at his house in the Hamptons. But as she was travelling with the princes, she needed the trip to be cleared by the British security services. They surprisingly vetoed Diana's plans because of concerns about the security surrounding the billionaire's homes or perhaps a possible threat from elsewhere. The decision by the security services ultimately led to Diana striking up her friendship with Dodi and returning to the south of France to holiday with him. This led to her being in Paris on 31 August, the day of the crash. The Evening Standard also understood that US secret services had a number of secret files on Diana and her closest associates that are held by the national security agency. The files, which included reports from foreign intelligence - thought to include MI5 and MI6 - come under both top secret and secret categories. The reports could not be released because of "exceptionally grave damage to the national security". The documents on the princess seemed to have arisen because of the company she kept rather than through any attempt to target her. Diana enjoyed an intimate friendship with Mr Forstmann after her relationship with Prince Charles had broken down.


Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: T a s h on June 02, 2008, 01:36:55 PM
So what's your point p i l? Her mother was a racist period.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: buyram on June 13, 2008, 12:36:44 PM

No need to get overexcited about the "right to bear arms." You have to remember that in Western democracies (especially America) the police maintains the public order with an iron hand. Just beacause you have a gun it does not mean that you will use it -- in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," as an insurance that were they attacked they'd be able to get back to the attacker. However, the possibility of being attacked in middle class neighborhoods is minimal and these people almost never put their guns to use. [...]


You are overlooking school shootings... what about high school kids shooting their classmates and teachers?


Good catch,, like!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: premiermaw on June 14, 2008, 03:03:11 PM

[...] For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.


Don't get me started with ex-communist countries and their a s s h o l e politicians that you'd not even consider to wipe your d i c k with! When I was in the Czech Republic last year several politicians were caught in a scheme with them booking into hotels using faxes with Blue Chip company letterheads, such as British Airways or the BBC, and then request that the account be sent to the corporate head office for payment.


Well, dru, there are some hotels (even 5-star ones) that do not deserve a dime from you! I mean, Jesus, some of them don't have Internet access fast enough for you to be able to watch a YouTube video!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: b e s a m e on June 25, 2008, 02:29:51 PM


For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.


Russians (and their Eastern European buddies) are uncivilized people who are unable to live under democracy -- they just can not see themselves building a normal society. Their people are lazy drunkards and thieves, who refuse to work and honestly but constantly complain about their salaries. Eastern Europeans are passive individuals, weary of change, unaccustomed to lofty motives, and prone only to deviant and deeply individualistic actions. Their vision of themselves borders on fantasy. They suppose without grounds, for instance, that their people are highly spiritual, hospitable, and ready to make sacrifices for others -- in reality they may easily be characterized as zoo animals.



Don't get me started with ex-communist countries and their a s s h o l e politicians that you'd not even consider to wipe your d i c k with! When I was in the Czech Republic last year several politicians were caught in a scheme with them booking into hotels using faxes with Blue Chip company letterheads, such as British Airways or the BBC, and then request that the account be sent to the corporate head office for payment.


HAHAHA! ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: coin up in the air on June 28, 2008, 10:55:27 AM
(http://images.nymag.com/daily/intel/27_obamamccaingunlaws_lgl.jpg)

What were the candidates' reactions to yesterday's landmark decision on gun rights by the Supreme Court? John McCain supported it, and Barack Obama ... kind of supported it. There's a paper trail suggesting Obama was for the D.C. ban, but yesterday he claimed to have "always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms" — while also seeing the need for "common-sense, effective safety measures" to protect "crime-ravaged communities." Some think he's taking a politically expedient stance to further his goal of winning every single state in the country this November, while others believe his support of yesterday's decision falls within his nuanced view of gun control. Many others, meanwhile, think the Supreme Court just made gun rights a non-issue this election season.

• George Will believes that "Obama benefits from this decision," because, while "he formerly supported groups promoting a collectivist interpretation" of the Second Amendment, "as a presidential candidate he has prudently endorsed the 'individual right' interpretation." Had the Court upheld the D.C. law, "emboldened gun-control enthusiasts would have thrust this issue … into the campaign, forcing Obama either to irritate his liberal base or alienate many socially conservative Democratic men."

• Mike Madden thinks "the Court's decision may have shoved the gun control issue further aside — and helped inoculate Obama from it." Now that the Court has settled the collective-versus-individual-right debate, "Republican and Democratic strategists alike say it may be harder than ever for conservatives to whip voters into a frenzy on gun ownership come November."

• Andrew Romano isn't sure Obama "will actually lose this round with voters — or that McCain will win." The decision allows Obama to "reaffirm his broader beliefs" — an individual right that can still be constrained — "which have, in fact, been consistent all along." McCain will only be able to benefit politically "if swing voters (who largely concur with Obama on the underlying issues) absorb the whole confusing chronology and decide that it exposes some sort of character flaw," but "very few people will sit still long enough to find out."

• Marc Ambinder writes that it's true that Obama has long held the view that an individual right to bear arms can be regulated for purposes of public safety. But "with regard to the D.C. law, it seems clear that Obama was okay with how D.C. government balanced those rights and is now okay with the seesaw swinging in the other direction." 

• Jennifer Rubin contends that Obama is making a small problem about gun rights into "a larger one of leadership and political courage." Voters "usually can spot someone trying to have it both ways," which is what Obama is trying to do in this case.

• Massimo Calabresi contends that Obama's "sudden social centrism" on gun rights (and also the death penalty) "would sound more convincing in a different context," meaning, if he weren't trying to court "the independent and moderate swing voters so key in a general election."

• Chuck Todd and friends are also wondering whether the gun issue will matter anymore in the election. As others have argued, the "Republicans might no longer be able to argue that Democrats want to take your guns away." In addition, "wedge issues like guns — or abortion, or the death penalty, or gay marriage" — may not "resonate at all in what’s looking to be a change election." Plus, "while the pro-gun crowd is very leery of Obama, they aren’t necessarily that fired up about McCain."

• Michael Powell places Obama's "Delphic" response to the Supreme Court decision in the context of his shift to the "vital center" on issues ranging from electronic surveillance to the death penalty to campaign finance.

• Chris Cillizza thinks "it would be a mistake to assign too much political importance" to the Supreme Court's decision, as the "minds of the American people were made up long ago when it comes to guns and gun control," and "[e]xternal forces … seem unlikely to move big blocs of voters toward (or from) either candidate."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06/did_obama_dodge_a_bullet_on_gun_control.html
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: NoUsername on June 28, 2008, 12:07:25 PM
Obama is simply a liar.  He has previously supported ever single gun control law that came his way, including a complete ban on handguns.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: brag on July 04, 2008, 02:07:55 PM
The idea that control of the population's access to guns is beneficially linked to violent crime is one of the biggest political frauds of our lifetime.

After trillions of dollars and manhours spent, the government has absolutely no control over the possession or easy flow of illegal narcotics.  Assume for a moment that a ban on guns and the ensuing war on guns would be equally successful, this means that at least 50% of highschool students would have easy access to guns.  Career criminals would have no problem obtaining them.

In fact, this is what we see in places that have instituted strict gun control: total violent crime increases.  This includes at least DC, Chicago, England, and Australia.

It is simply a fraud perpetrated by ultra-liberals and peacenik idealists.  Notably, over 40,000 people die every year as a result of DUI, yet none of you would support a ban on alcohol.  Guns are related to only 30,000 deaths per year; less than 15,000 if you exclude suicide.  Even if you make the extremely egregious assumptions that criminals will become law abiding without access to guns, that they will in fact not have access to guns, that suicidal people will not jump off buildings or use simple and painless household cleaners as they do in Japan, there is still absolutely no reason to pursue a ban on guns before a ban on alcohol.


Amen florida357!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: StephanyDS on July 06, 2008, 10:47:40 PM
(http://www.bodycandy.com/mas_assets/full/BUCK-195.jpg)

I'm sure it's already been done.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Crystal Pearl on July 07, 2008, 02:09:52 AM
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws.

In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.

Right, because police are always there to keep us safe and we don't ever need to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or those in our care from various rapists, burglars, thieves, carjackers, or other thugs and sickos.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: StephanyDS on July 07, 2008, 12:12:30 PM

Russians (and their Eastern European buddies) are uncivilized people who are unable to live under democracy -- they just can not see themselves building a normal society. Their people are lazy drunkards and thieves, who refuse to work and honestly but constantly complain about their salaries. Eastern Europeans are passive individuals, weary of change, unaccustomed to lofty motives, and prone only to deviant and deeply individualistic actions. Their vision of themselves borders on fantasy. They suppose without grounds, for instance, that their people are highly spiritual, hospitable, and ready to make sacrifices for others -- in reality they may easily be characterized as zoo animals.

Are you kidding? Because if you are, you should lay off the jokes because you are terrible at being funny. If you are not, then you should lay on the antifreeze and do the world a favor.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: doubtie on July 08, 2008, 05:45:52 AM

Well, dru, there are some hotels (even 5-star ones) that do not deserve a dime from you! I mean, Jesus, some of them don't have Internet access fast enough for you to be able to watch a YouTube video!


I am not sure that's really the case ..
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: no free haircuts on July 10, 2008, 11:33:18 AM

(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3858/66213336bb7.jpg)

Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."


(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: totallypartial on July 14, 2008, 07:35:35 PM

Well, dru, there are some hotels (even 5-star ones) that do not deserve a dime from you! I mean, Jesus, some of them don't have Internet access fast enough for you to be able to watch a YouTube video!


I am not sure that's really the case ..


hahaha ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: copula on July 16, 2008, 08:53:04 AM

Well, dru, there are some hotels (even 5-star ones) that do not deserve a dime from you! I mean, Jesus, some of them don't have Internet access fast enough for you to be able to watch a YouTube video!


I am not sure that's really the case ..


Are you buying or selling doubtie?
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: Procedure on July 18, 2008, 04:08:39 AM

(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3858/66213336bb7.jpg)

Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."


(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."

Damn, that's harsh.  Especially considering that would make her the mother of a whore and the princes of England sons of a whore.  Ouch
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: QIR on July 19, 2008, 03:54:30 PM

(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3858/66213336bb7.jpg)

Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."


(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."

Damn, that's harsh.  Especially considering that would make her the mother of a whore and the princes of England sons of a whore.  Ouch


Taken into account her character and convictions, I'm surprised how it's possible she did not kill Diana WITH HER OWN HANDS!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: mother in law on July 21, 2008, 03:00:26 PM

No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related


Actually, oliver, I don't think "someone's further interpretation" is needed... what you say is pretty clear.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: foveal on July 21, 2008, 04:18:28 PM
(http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/intruder2_s.jpg?w=600&h=367)

The Heller Case, commonly referred to as the DC Gun Case, went before the Supreme Court today and may finally resolve the question of whether or not owning a gun is an individual right.  Since the Constitution is unambiguous about it, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," this case should be a slam dunk.  But since the Supreme Court seems more open to the whims of the members rather than bound by the oath they swore upon entering office (see the Kilo decision), anything is possible.

There's no point in arguing the merits of the case, some people support individual rights, other don't like them and want the court to rule them on to the ash heap of history (rather than go about doing away with an amendment to the Constitution the way it was designed to be done - by amending it again (see prohibition).  That’s fine, they can think it all they want, at least until someone doesn’t like what people think and gets a legal ruling against having those thoughts, that’s not really the point.

What is telling about this case is the clear line of editorial input in the first line of this Associated Press story:

Quote
Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms."

Catch the implication there?  As if those who advocate for gun rights somehow support gun violence, perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly.

What is really telling about the different sides is this part of the story:

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.

Quote
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Jenkins and members of Stand Up for Democracy in DC have full faith in government to take care of them over themselves.  That is both telling and disturbing.  Washington DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country WITH a gun ban, yet Jenkins “feels” the government that horribly mismanages the District will somehow magically take care of its citizens when criminals strike.

Criminals specifically avoid the strong in society, hence the phrase "prey on the weak."  People are free to be as weak as they like, but the Constitution clearly grants everyone the right to choose whether they wish to so or not.  Mr. Heller chooses not be to weak, he chooses to protect himself.  It's now in the hands of the Supreme Court to determine if he’s allowed to exercise that right.

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Exjade on July 22, 2008, 02:08:18 PM
tag
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Tacoma on July 23, 2008, 03:27:15 PM

One thing I never understood is how these highway shooters firing shots simply disappear without actually taking someone down ..I mean, we sure know these "shootings" are different from the sniper spree of nearly 6 years ago (those attacks targeted people who were standing outside their cars) but still... not to mention that Virginia gets also reminded of a lot of emergencies they've had...


??
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: thegayismine on July 28, 2008, 10:30:50 AM

No need to be sarcastic, berate! I think sheraton makes a very interesting comment when talking specifically about "the mother of the future king to have a child with his son" (Dodi being, as he was, an Arab, of another race). Someone's further interpretation would be appreciated..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy-cVlDVW0&feature=related


Actually, oliver, I don't think "someone's further interpretation" is needed... what you say is pretty clear.


I'd assume oliver is enquiring as to whether there's some arcane rule in place that kingdoms and the like adhere to - some kind of "secret" that normal people would consider weird or irrational that made Phillip execute Diana because of her marriage to Dodi (for instance, freemasons, with all those 33rd Degree Initiation idiotic rules and the like...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: bearer share on July 29, 2008, 10:22:04 AM
In "Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag" authors argue that the underlying cost of all society is the violent death of some of its members." In contrast to the view that societal violence is something that occasionally "happens" in spite of our best efforts, the authors argue that violence is INHERENT WITHIN THE VERY NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF "SOCIETY. Many writers speak about the naturally "aggressive" nature of human beings. Marvin and Ingle understand that violence has a deeper source, namely the societal compulsion to SACRIFICE ITS OWN MEMBERS IN THE NAME OF THE SACRED (NATIONAL) IDEAL. It is this SACRIFICAL meaning of violence that human beings refuse to perceive.

The authors state that "OUR DEEPEST SECRET, THE COLLECTIVE GROUP TABOO, IS KNOWLEDGE THAT SOCIETY DEPENDS ON THE DEATH OF SACRIFICIAL VICTIMS AT THE HANDS OF THE GROUP ITSELF." Our capacity to understand the nature of human society requires perceiving this relationship between sacred groups and collective violence. This book represents a significant step toward revealing and articulating this relationship.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: p a g a n on July 29, 2008, 11:25:49 AM
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions are generated."

- Bertrand Russel

The more one studies mind control, secret societies and the occult, the more one understands the subtlety and hidden symbolism of the Kennedy assassination.

James Shelby Downard's underground classic, "Sorcery, Sex, Assassination and the Science of Symbolism," links American historical events with a grand occult plan to "turn us into cybernetic mystery zombies." The assassination of JFK was a performance of the occult ritual called The Killing of the King, designed as a mass-trauma, mind-control assault against the national body-politic of the United States.

Mr. Downward's co-researcher and author, Michael A. Hoffman II, wrote in "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare" that "fabled alchemy had at least three goals to accomplish before the total decay of matter, the total breakdown we are witnessing all around us today, was fulfilled and these are:


Hoffman writes:

Since ancient times these were the goals of the Gnostic-Rosicrucian-Masonic-Hermetic Academy, an elite as real and corporeal as President Bush's Skull and Bones society at Yale University; the Bohemian Grove in California; Dr. John Whiteside Parson's Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) also in California; General Albert Pike's Scottish and Palladian Rites of Freemasonry and a host of lesser imitators. All of these cults have or had the highest possible offices, connections and old boy networks. The Creation and Destruction of Primordial Matter was accomplished at the White Head ("Ancient of Days"), at White Sands, New Mexico, at the Trinity Site. The Trinity Site itself is located at the beginning of an ancient Western road known in old Mexico as the Jornada del Muerto (the Journey of the Dead Man). Early in this century a Freemason named Peter Kern was ordered to build a highly symbolic "Gate of Death" at a key point on this ancient trail. It was known as the Gate with a Thousand Doors. At the front of this gate Kern was ceremonially murdered (decapitated) by a hooded executioner. Gary Trudeau satirized the Aztec-masonic Comazotz head-chopping cult of the American Southwest in a series of December, 1988 "Doonesbury" cartoons which depicted Skull and Bones initiates trying to dispose of a number of heads including that of Pancho Villa, a key political operative of the cryptocracy who was in fact also ritually decapitated.

Other occult rituals for the Creation and Destruction of Primordial Matter were played out in the general area of the 33rd degree of north parallel latitude in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The Trinity Site is also at this latitude. There are 33 segments in the human spinal column which according to occult lore is the vehicle of the fiery ascent of the Kundalini serpent force which resides in the human body. 33 is the highest degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry. Near the Trinity Site a derelict shack was symbolically dubbed "MacDonald House." The Creation and Destruction of Primordial Matter occurred exactly on the Trinity Site, the "Place of Fire," with the explosion of the first atomic bomb, culminating untold thousands of years of alchemical speculation and practice. The Killing of the King rite was accomplished at another Trinity site located approximately ten miles south of the 33rd degree of north parallel latitude between the Trinity River and the Triple Underpass at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Dealy Plaza was the site of the first masonic temple in Dallas. In this spot, which had been known during the 19th century cowboy era as "Bloody Elm Street," the world leader who had become known as the "King of Camelot," President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was shot to death.

A widely publicized image which has become perhaps the key symbol of the enigma of the Kennedy hoodwink, emerged immediately in the wake of the assassination: a photograph three "tramps" in official custody, who were unexplainably released and never identified, though speculation about who they really were has reached fever pitch among investigators. This photograph is a ritual accompaniment of the Black Mass that was the ceremonial immolation of a king, the unmistakable calling card of masonic murder, the appearance of Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, the three "unworthy craftsmen" of Temple burlesque, "that will not be blamed for nothing.' This ritual symbolism is necessary for the accomplishment of what James Shelby Downard and I described in the first edition of Apocalypse Culture, as the alchemical intention of the killing of the 'King of Camelot':

Quote
"...the ultimate purpose of that assassination was no political or economic but sorcerous: for the control of the dreaming mind and the marshaling of its forces is the omnipotent force in this entire scenario of lies, cruelty and degradation. Something died in the American people on Nov. 22, 1963 -- call it idealism, innocence or the quest for moral excellence. It is the transformation of human beings which is the authentic reason and motive for the Kennedy murder..."

The seemingly random and senseless slaughter of a President the week before Thanksgiving, by having his head blown apart in those now infamous Zapruder film frames, is the signpost of humanity's entry into what David Cronenberg in his Videodrome Rosicrucian cinematic manifesto termed, "Savage New Times." The search for the three assassins has become a trip up and down Tim Finnegan's ladder, a ladder containing "one false step after another." It is a masonic riddle several magnitudes above the pedestrian, CIA-Mafia-Anti-Castro-Castro-KGB-Texas rightwing etc. etc. political "solutions" pushed by the various books and movies which sometimes only serve to confuse and demoralize us all the more.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: p a g a n on July 29, 2008, 11:29:09 AM
The Alchemy of Ritual Murder

What ought to be unambiguous to any student of mass psychology, is the almost immediate decline of the American people in the wake of this shocking, televised slaughter. There are many indicators of the transformation. Within a year Americans had largely switched from softer-toned, naturally colored cotton clothing to garish-colored artificial polyesters. Popular music became louder, faster and more cacophonous. Drugs appeared for the first time outside the Bohemian subculture ghettos, in the mainstream. Extremes of every kind came into fashion. Revolutions in cognition and behavior were on the horizon, from the Beatles to Charles Manson, from Free Love to LSD. The killers were not caught, the Warren Commission was a whitewash. There was a sense that the men who ordered the assassination were grinning somewhere over cocktails and out of this, a nearly-psychedelic wonder seized the American population, an awesome shiver before the realization that whoever could kill a president of the United States in broad daylight and get away with it, could get away with anything. A hidden government behind the visible government of these United States became painfully obvious in a kind of subliminal way and lent an undercurrent of the hallucinogenic to our reality. Welcome to Oz thanks to the men behind Os-wald and Ruby. There was a transfer of power in the collective group mind the American masses: from the public power of the elected front-man Chief Executive, to an unelected invisible college capable of terminating him with impunity.

For the first time in their history since the 1826 masonic assassination of writer William Morgan, Americans were forced to confront the vertiginous reality of a hidden power ruling their world. Sir James Frazer writing in The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, explains that when the "divine king" is murdered by one who is himself stronger or craftier, those powers of "divinity" which were the king's are "Sympathetically" and "Contagiously" transferred from the vanquished to the victor. The entry of this awareness into the subconscious Group "Dreaming" Mind of the American masses instituted a new simulacrum. The shocking introduction of a diametrically different, new "reality" is a classic scenario of another phase of alchemical programming known to the cryptocracy as "Clamores. "

Dave Marsh writing in Rolling Stone magazine (Feb. 24, 1977):

Quote
"The Beatles have always had an intimate connection to the JFK assassination. He was shot the week before Thanksgiving 1963. By February 1964, the Beatles were number one in the national charts and the climactic appearance on Ed Sullivan's TV show occurred. Even Brian Epstein (the manager of the Beatles) believed the Kennedy assassination helped their rise -- the Beatles appeared to bind our wounds with their messages of joy and handholding... And the way was paved, replacing Camelot with Oz."

Now the American people were forced to confront a scary alternative reality, the reality of a shadow government, over which they had neither control or knowledge. The shepherding process was thus accelerated with a vengeance. Avant-garde advertising, music, politics and news would hereafter depict (especially in the electronic media) -- sometimes fleetingly, sometimes openly -- a "shadow side" of reality, an underground amoral "funhouse" current associated with extreme sex, extreme violence and extreme speed. The static images of the suit-and-tie talking heads of establishment religion, government, politics and business were subtly shown to be subordinate to the Shadow State, which the American people were gradually getting a bigger glimpse of out of the corner of their collective eye. The interesting function of this phenomenon is that it simultaneously produces both terror and adulation and undercuts any offensive against it among its percipients, which does not possess the same jump-cut speed and funhouse ambiance. There is a sense of existing in a palace of marvels manipulated by beautiful but Satanic princes possessed of so much knowledge, power and experience as to be vastly superior to the rest of humanity. They have been everywhere. They have done everything. They run the show which mesmerizes us. We are determined to watch it. We are transfixed and desperate to see their newest production, their latest thrilling revelation, even when the thrills are solely based upon the further confirmation of our dehumanization.

J.G. Ballard:

Quote
"In this overlit realm ruled by images of the space race and the Vietnam War, the Kennedy assassination and the suicide of Marilyn Monroe, a unique alchemy of the imagination was taking place... The demise of feeling and emotion, the death of affect, presided like a morbid sun over the playground of that ominous decade." The role assigned to us is that of zombies called upon by our shadow masters to perform bit parts and act as stock characters in their spectacular show. This mesmerizing process produces a demoralized, cynical, double-mind.

- "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare," pp. 91-95.

The perpetrators deliberately murdered JFK in such a way as to affect our national identity and cohesiveness -- to fracture America's soul. Even the blatancy of their conspiracy was designed to show their "superiority" and our "futility." "They" were doing to the nation what they had been doing to individuals for years. Looking into the subject of mind-control, one finds that the scope is wide and methods used are sophisticated. Mind control traces its origins to religious institutional use by priesthoods. Techniques of mind control developed in our western culture were field-tested by the Jesuits, certain Vatican groups, and various mystery religions, secret societies and masonic organizations. Methods tested during the Inquisition were refined by Dr. Josef Mengele during the reign of the Third Reich. After World War II, thousands of Nazi scientists, researchers and administrators were "smuggled" into the United States against direct written orders from President Harry S. Truman, through Operation Sunrise, Operation Blowback, Operation Paperclip and other covert ops. Soon afterwards, a mind control project called Marionette Programming imported from Nazi Germany was revived under the new name, "Project Monarch." The basic component of the Monarch program is the sophisticated manipulation of the mind, using extreme trauma to induce Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), now known as Disassociative Disorder. In public testimony submitted to the President's Committee on Radiation, there are amazing allegations of severe torture and inhumane pogroms foisted upon Americans and other citizens, especially as children. These same children were used in radiation experiments. They detail the drug and traumatic methodology of sophisticated mind control. Candy Jones and Cathy O'Brien tell similar stories of brutal mind control experimentation as part of the CIA's MKULTRA program. Many mind control survivors speak of a "Dr. Greene." Some researchers have identified Dr. Greene as the infamous Dr. Mengele. But mind control programs and assassinations are merely part of a much larger "enterprise" being carried out by an international network of power interests. In 1995, a researcher-lawyer anonymously posted his ten-year investigation of this conspiracy on the Internet. Calling the JFK assassination part of a 50-year conspiracy, he detailed the structure of this international network, which he named "the group." The inner workings and "New World Order" agenda of this group fit snugly with what other researchers have called the Illuminati.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: schel on July 30, 2008, 10:23:20 AM

Mr. Downward's co-researcher and author, Michael A. Hoffman II, wrote in "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare" that "fabled alchemy had at least three goals to accomplish before the total decay of matter, the total breakdown we are witnessing all around us today, was fulfilled and these are:

  • "The Creation and Destruction of Primordial Matter."
  • "The Killing of the Divine King."
  • "The Bringing of Prima Materia to Prima Terra."


Contrast it to this post


[...] Taboos do not derive from divine prohibition, nor are they justified. They have no known origin. They are punished automatically by "an inner, automatic arrangement." Freud works with an electric body. Tabooed objects radiate a "dangerous power," are "charged," an electricity transmitted by touch. This power is inherent in all persons who are more or less prominent, such as kings, priests and the newly born; in all exceptional physical states, such as menstruation, puberty and birth; in everything sinister, like illness and death, and in everything connected with these conditions by virtue or contagion or dissemination." Freud calls that energy libido, the energy of desire, an energy that binds the subject to the object world, an energy that can be redirected, or displaced, from its original object, concealed and occluded, but never lost. It is an elementary economics.

Freud argues that primitive religion contains the secret, not just of religion, but of modern authority. Freud's representatives of the collectivity -- the kings and priests, "bearers of that mysterious and dangerous magic power which communicates itself by contact, like an electric charge, bringing death and destruction to any one not protected by a similar "charge" bear this energy. When the king touches intentionally, it heals; but when he is touched, it destroys. Arching between sovereign and subject, the energy is munificent; turned about, it blows the circuit box. The taboos surrounding the powerful, which guard their approach through protocol, sequester them in sacred sites, give them great powers, yet hedge in their freedom with a dense web of etiquette originate, Freud argues, in the unconscious hostility, nay the murderous urges, their subjects harbor towards them. Our attitude towards the powerful is ambivalent -- both veneration and hatred, love and a sense of persecution. Through taboo, we protect both them and ourselves from the aggression within us. Taboo's current is alternating, the original meaning of the word being both holy and unclean.

[...]

Identification precedes object choice as an affective modality, "being" before "having." Freud argues that the proscribed totem is a projective substitute for the father, the ego ideal, here akin to children who identify with, yet project their hostility towards, and consequent fear of, their fathers on to animals. Through the ceremonial eating of the totem, the members of the clan affirm their consubstantiality, their being of the same substance or kinship, with each other and with the deity. The totemic ritual is then not only a performance of identity with the father; it is also, Freud contends, a violent assimilation, a "having," not a "being." There is, Freud contends, a bloody moment in our history that accounts for this totemic sacrifice, a "great event with which culture began." The democracy of brothers has murderous origins.

This great story goes like this: One day the expelled brothers joined forces, slew and ate the father, and thus put an end to the father horde. Together they dared and accomplished what would have remained impossible for them single... Of course these cannibalistic savages ate their victim. The violent primal father had surely been the envied and feared model for each of the brothers. Now they accomplished their identification with him by devouring him and each acquired a part of his strength. The totem feast, which is perhaps mankind's first celebration, would be the repetition and commemoration of this memorable, criminal act with which so many things began, social organization, moral restrictions and religion. The totemic sacrifice represents the sons' victory over patriarchal power, or in later interpretations when the facticity of the event was suspended, their vanquishing of a perennial desire, not an historical act, to destroy the father, or the father's place. No wonder, Freud argued, the totemic sacrifice, the periodic sacrifice of the most sacred animal, indeed its eating, was always accomplished together, never alone; no wonder it was obligatory. All had to take responsibility for this murder.

The killed animal is first mourned and then celebrated, reflecting the sons' love of the father, an absent father who can now be safely loved, incorporated through identification in the form of the Superego. Freud writes, "The dead now became stronger than the living had been..." This paternal corpse lives on inside of us, but is not of us. Christianity's success, Freud argues, derives from its supreme atonement for this murderous desire, this original sin, the son becoming a god, the children identifying themselves with him by ritual consumption of his body and blood. The social has criminal origins, scenes bloodied by forbidden love and death. The wish to be like the father, to be omnipotent, does not die with the father, but rather grows, becoming "an ideal... having as a content the fullness of power and the freedom from restriction of the conquered primal father, as well as the willingness to subject themselves to him." This father ideal is the basis of the gods and "godlike kings who transfer the patriarchal system to the state." Sacrifice to the gods replaces totemic sacrifice. And to the state, instead of sacrificing totemic animals, we now sacrifice human kind. "It must be said that the revenge of the deposed and reinstated father has been very cruel; it culminated in the dominance of authority." Generalized authority originates in ambivalent death wishes against patriarchal power.

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: s t u f f on August 08, 2008, 02:02:04 AM

The perpetrators deliberately murdered JFK in such a way as to affect our national identity and cohesiveness -- to fracture America's soul. Even the blatancy of their conspiracy was designed to show their "superiority" and our "futility." "They" were doing to the nation what they had been doing to individuals for years. Looking into the subject of mind-control, one finds that the scope is wide and methods used are sophisticated. Mind control traces its origins to religious institutional use by priesthoods. Techniques of mind control developed in our western culture were field-tested by the Jesuits, certain Vatican groups, and various mystery religions, secret societies and masonic organizations. Methods tested during the Inquisition were refined by Dr. Josef Mengele during the reign of the Third Reich.


Could you expand a bit?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: driven on August 08, 2008, 03:51:26 PM
Here it is the Table of Contents of the "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare"

http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=19529532fh0.jpg
Title: Right to Bear Arms
Post by: isaura on August 10, 2008, 08:09:39 PM

(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3858/66213336bb7.jpg)

Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."


(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."


Somebody please explain to me why the mother was wrong...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: caribou on August 12, 2008, 12:19:31 PM
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws.

In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.

Right, because police are always there to keep us safe and we don't ever need to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or those in our care from various rapists, burglars, thieves, carjackers, or other thugs and sickos.


Few people know to handle guns properly - you could simply miss the target and harm a bystander or whatever. It's not like the police that receives training, for instance.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5038/branch-image.jpg)

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ouffha on August 13, 2008, 04:03:42 AM

"Everyone has a right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall.. What's there to be misconstrued about?" - Brian Griffin
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: célibataire endurci on August 13, 2008, 11:00:19 AM

(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3858/66213336bb7.jpg)

Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."


(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."


Somebody please explain to me why the mother was wrong...


What exactly do you mean, isaura?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: black widow on August 16, 2008, 08:43:19 AM

The Heller Case, commonly referred to as the DC Gun Case, went before the Supreme Court today and may finally resolve the question of whether or not owning a gun is an individual right. Since the Constitution is unambiguous about it, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," this case should be a slam dunk. But since the Supreme Court seems more open to the whims of the members rather than bound by the oath they swore upon entering office (see the Kilo decision), anything is possible. There's no point in arguing the merits of the case, some people support individual rights, other don't like them and want the court to rule them on to the ash heap of history (rather than go about doing away with an amendment to the Constitution the way it was designed to be done - by amending it again (see prohibition). That's fine, they can think it all they want, at least until someone doesn’t like what people think and gets a legal ruling against having those thoughts, that’s not really the point.

What is telling about this case is the clear line of editorial input in the first line of this Associated Press story:

Quote
Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."

Catch the implication there?  As if those who advocate for gun rights somehow support gun violence, perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly. What is really telling about the different sides is this part of the story:

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.

Quote
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Jenkins and members of Stand Up for Democracy in DC have full faith in government to take care of them over themselves.  That is both telling and disturbing.  Washington DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country WITH a gun ban, yet Jenkins "feels" the government that horribly mismanages the District will somehow magically take care of its citizens when criminals strike. Criminals specifically avoid the strong in society, hence the phrase "prey on the weak."  People are free to be as weak as they like, but the Constitution clearly grants everyone the right to choose whether they wish to so or not. Mr. Heller chooses not be to weak, he chooses to protect himself. It's now in the hands of the Supreme Court to determine if he's allowed to exercise that right.


The right to bear arms was only upheld by a 5-4 vote in quite possibly the most conservative supreme court in United States history. Don't you think it's time to outlaw ALL guns? In simple percentage points, how many crimes have pistols stopped, versus how many have they enabled?

(http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6309/ak20party20chairman20shnz0.jpg)

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A man recently fired from a Target store barged into the Arkansas Democratic headquarters Wednesday and fatally shot the state party chairman before speeding off in his pickup. Police later shot and killed the suspect after a 30-mile chase. Police identified the suspect as 50-year-old Timothy Dale Johnson of Searcy, a town about 50 miles northeast of Little Rock. They said that moments after the shooting, Johnson pointed a handgun at a worker at the nearby Arkansas Baptist headquarters. An official there said he told the worker, "I lost my job." Chairman Bill Gwatney died 4 hours after the shooting. The 48-year-old former state senator had been planning to travel to the Democratic National Convention later this month as a superdelegate. He had backed Hillary Rodham Clinton but endorsed Barack Obama after she dropped out of the race. Clinton and her husband, former President and former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, issued a statement saying Gwatney was "not only a strong chairman of Arkansas' Democratic Party, but ... also a cherished friend and confidant."

Conway police said a Target store 30 miles north of Little Rock had fired Johnson earlier Wednesday because he had written graffiti on a store wall. The age and address provided by Conway officers matched those provided by Little Rock police for its suspect. Witnesses said the gunman entered the party offices shortly before noon and said he wanted to see Gwatney. "He said he was interested in volunteering, but that was obviously a lie," said 17-year-old party volunteer Sam Higginbotham. He said that when the suspect was refused a meeting with Gwatney, he pushed past employees to reach the chairman's office. Little Rock police spokesman Lt. Terry Hastings said the suspect and Gwatney introduced themselves to one another, at which time the suspect "pulled out a handgun and shot Gwatney several times." Hastings didn't say what the two discussed, but said their discussion was not a heated one. Police said after leaving the office, the suspect pointed a gun at a worker at the Baptist headquarters 7 blocks away. When asked what was wrong, the man said "I lost my job" said Dan Jordan, the group's business manager.

After the suspect avoided spike strips and a roadblock along U.S. 167 near Sheridan, police rammed his car, spinning it, said Grant County Sheriff Lance Huey. He got out of his truck and began shooting, and state police and sheriff's deputies fired back, striking him several times, he said. Hastings said investigators found at least 2 handguns in the suspect's truck. There was a busy signal Wednesday night at a phone number listed under Johnson's name. Little Rock police said they could find no criminal record for him. According to Conway police spokeswoman Sharen Carter, Target fired Johnson before 8 a.m. Wednesday because he had written on a wall. Other store employees said Johnson's body shook as he turned in his ID badge. A Target manager had called police because of the incident but the wall had already been cleaned. The state Capitol was locked down for about an hour until police got word the gunman had been captured, said Arkansas State Capitol police Sgt. Charlie Brice. Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat who served with Gwatney in the state Senate, had been on a flight to Springdale in northwestern Arkansas. He returned to Little Rock and joined an impromptu vigil at University Hospital after what he called a "shocking and senseless attack." Gwatney had been Beebe's finance chairman during the governor's 2006 campaign.

"Arkansas has lost a great son, and I have lost a great friend. There is deep pain in Arkansas tonight because of the sheer number of people who knew, respected and loved Bill Gwatney," Beebe said. Karen Ray, executive director of the Republican Party of Arkansas, sent her workers home early "out of an abundance of caution. Our hearts go out to everyone at the Democratic headquarters. What a tragedy," Ray said. "This is just a very upsetting, troubling and scary thing for our staff as well." Sarah Lee, a sales clerk at a flower shop across street from the party headquarters, said that around noon Gwatney's secretary ran into the shop and asked someone to call 911. Lee said the secretary told her the man had come into the party's office and asked to speak with Gwatney. When the secretary said she wouldn't allow him to meet with Gwatney, the man went into his office and shot him, Lee said. Last November, a distraught man wearing what appeared to be a bomb walked into a Clinton campaign office in New Hampshire and demanded to speak to the candidate about access to mental health care. A hostage drama dragged on for nearly six hours until he peacefully surrendered. The confrontation brought Clinton's campaign to a standstill just 5 weeks before the New Hampshire primary. Security for her was increased as a precaution. She said she did not know the suspect.
Title: "All is One"
Post by: head phone on August 19, 2008, 06:05:29 PM

I think it's the Ouroboros, the snake or dragon devouring its own tail -- the alchemical symbol par excellence of eternal recurrence.


(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


The concept of cyclical patterns is very prominent in Indian religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism among others. The Wheel of life represents an endless cycle of birth, life, and death from which one seeks liberation. In Tantric Buddhism, a wheel of time concept known as the Kalachakra expresses the idea of an endless cycle of existence and knowledge. A notable new religious movement called the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University teaches that this "eternal return" happens once every exactly 5,000 years in an identically repeating cycle ending with a total annihilation of humanity via an imminent and desirable Nuclear Holocaust, civil war and natural disaster information which is generally hidden from non-members.
Title: Re: "All is One"
Post by: fortuneteller on August 20, 2008, 12:15:23 PM

The concept of cyclical patterns is very prominent in Indian religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism among others. The Wheel of life represents an endless cycle of birth, life, and death from which one seeks liberation. In Tantric Buddhism, a wheel of time concept known as the Kalachakra expresses the idea of an endless cycle of existence and knowledge. A notable new religious movement called the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University teaches that this "eternal return" happens once every exactly 5,000 years in an identically repeating cycle ending with a total annihilation of humanity via an imminent and desirable Nuclear Holocaust, civil war and natural disaster information which is generally hidden from non-members.


Interesting comment, headphones. It appears that the possibility of using nuclear weapons in war is usually divided into 2 subgroups, each with different effects and potentially fought with different types of nuclear armaments.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5116/nuclear_explosion.jpg)

The first, a limited nuclear war (sometimes attack or exchange), refers to a small scale use of nuclear weapons by one or more parties. A "limited nuclear war" would most likely consist of a limited exchange between two nuclear superpowers targeting each other's military facilities, either as an attempt to pre-emptively cripple the enemy's ability to attack as a defensive measure or as a prelude to an invasion by conventional forces as an offensive measure. It will also refer to a nuclear war between minor nuclear powers, who lack the ability to deliver a decisive strike. This term would apply to any limited use of nuclear weapons, which may involve either military or civilian targets. The second, a full-scale nuclear war, consists of large numbers of weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets. Such an attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social, and military infrastructure of a nation by means of an overwhelming nuclear attack.

Some Cold War strategists argued that a limited nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers (such as the United States and the Soviet Union) and if so several predicted that a limited war could "escalate" into an all-out war. Others have called limited nuclear war "global nuclear holocaust in slow motion" arguing that once such a war took place others would be sure to follow over a period of decades, effectively rendering the planet uninhabitable in the same way that a "full-scale nuclear war" between superpowers would, only taking a much longer and more agonizing path to achieve the same result. Even the most optimistic predictions of the effects of a major nuclear exchange foresee the death of billions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate, particularly if predictions of nuclear winter are accurate. It is in this latter mode that nuclear warfare is usually alluded to as a doomsday scenario. Such hypothesized civilization-ending nuclear wars have been a staple of the science fiction literature and film genre for decades.

A third category, not usually included with the above two, is accidental nuclear war, in which a nuclear war is triggered unintentionally. Possible scenarios for this have included malfunctioning early warning devices and targeting computers, deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, accidental straying of planes into enemy airspace, reactions to unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and so forth. A number of these scenarios did actually occur during the Cold War, though none resulted in a nuclear exchange. Many such scenarios have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1962 novel "Fail-Safe" and the film "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," also released in 1964.
Title: Re: "All is One"
Post by: ambulando on August 21, 2008, 06:43:00 PM

(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6828/sfwux5.jpg

Zeno's paradoxes are a set of problems generally thought to have been devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides's doctrine that "all is one" and that, contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. He argued as follows: suppose our burgeoning "mover", Achilles say, wishes to move from A to B. To achieve this he must traverse half the distance from A to B. To get from the midpoint of AB to B Achilles must traverse half this distance, and so on and so forth. However many times he performs one of these "traversing" tasks there is another one left for him to do before he arrives at B. Thus it follows, according to Zeno, that motion (travelling a non-zero distance in finite time) is a supertask. Zeno further argues that supertasks are not possible (how can this sequence be completed if for each traversing there is another one to come?). It follows that motion is impossible.

Zeno's argument takes the following form:

1. Motion is a supertask, because the completion of motion over any set distance involved an infinite number of steps
2. Supertasks are impossible
3. Therefore motion is impossible

Most subsequent philosophers reject Zeno's bold conclusion in favor of common sense. Instead they turn his argument on its head (assuming it's valid) and take it as a proof by contradiction where the possibility of motion is taken for granted. They accept the possibility of motion and apply modus tollens (contrapositive) to Zeno's argument to reach the conclusion that either motion is not a supertask or supertasks are in fact possible.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ParkOperationsSupervisor on August 27, 2008, 10:25:08 AM

Right, because police are always there to keep us safe and we don't ever need to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or those in our care from various rapists, burglars, thieves, carjackers, or other thugs and sickos.


Few people know to handle guns properly - you could simply miss the target and harm a bystander or whatever. It's not like the police that receives training, for instance.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5038/branch-image.jpg)


Even other law enforcement personnel don't get that much training to handle guns properly but with the passing of time they manage to use them satisfactorily - it's basically a matter of experience. Are you somewhat suggesting that they need to spend a few months interning in some hot local police department?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: rent a car on August 27, 2008, 11:22:40 AM
Well, the fact is that it's the police that deals with violent and dangerous criminals. For instance, local cops deal with many more drugs kingpins than all the other agencies put together. It's all about perception and promotion - for God's sake, Herbert Hoover was a public relations guy who could have hit big with ad campaigns!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: remember me? on August 28, 2008, 03:51:30 PM

Well, the fact is that it's the police that deals with violent and dangerous criminals. For instance, local cops deal with many more drugs kingpins than all the other agencies put together. It's all about perception and promotion - for God's sake, Herbert Hoover was a public relations guy who could have hit big with ad campaigns!


Who's Herbert Hoover? Are you talking about the 31st President of the United States? I don't see how he relates to "campaign ads" and the like
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: in lieu of on August 29, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
You've got to be kidding me with this thread - an individual who has the intent to kill will do it with whatever he finds on his way - for example, cars are known to have been used extensively as weapons. Cars as weapons are less used to kill than in road accidents, but do occur from time to time. The driver may be drunk or on drugs, or just homicidal - cars can be weapons of death just as fearful as the loaded guns.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: st a s h on September 02, 2008, 03:41:16 PM
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws.

In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.

Right, because police are always there to keep us safe and we don't ever need to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or those in our care from various rapists, burglars, thieves, carjackers, or other thugs and sickos.


Few people know to handle guns properly - you could simply miss the target and harm a bystander or whatever. It's not like the police that receives training, for instance.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5038/branch-image.jpg)


Are you somewhat suggesting that plain folks who buy guns should be required to undergo some training just like the police so that they'd not miss the target?!

Are you aware that violence against loved ones (with fatal consequences) is primarily due to people having a gun in their home? Sure, many cases are unfortunate accidents, but many others are not. An individual trained in using a gun would not miss the target under most circumstances with the end result being killing their family members and friends.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: latte on September 03, 2008, 06:59:16 PM
Oh please, stash, you are merely regurgitating the subject matter! Back and forth, back and forth! Just stop it guys!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: lust on September 03, 2008, 07:15:20 PM
Actually, I think the last 3-4 posters have made quite interesting comments, latte!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: le mains sales on September 05, 2008, 07:27:08 PM
Well, what can I say, this thread sounds a little bit like that ABBA's hit "Thank You For The Music" Enjoy it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WauFkb4jmCI&feature=related
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: u s ehe r n a m e on September 06, 2008, 02:00:41 PM

In an amazing scientific discovery, we have now come to know that antihomicidal defenses start early in life -- even before we are born, when we still inhabit the presumably cozy environment of our mother's womb. As Harvard biologist David Haig has discovered, even the womb presents its own dangers; a chief one of those is what is known as spontaneous abortions, many of which happen before a woman even knows she is pregnant. Indeed, we now know that many women who experience late periods and worry that they are pregnant, only to be relieved later when their periods begin again, have actually experienced spontaneous abortion of the growing fetus. According to Haig's findings, these often undetected miscarriages occur when the mother's body has sensed that the fetus is in poor health or possesses genetic abnormalities.

Remarkably, Haig also discovered that a defense mechanism has evolved to outwit the mother's body and protect the fetus. This is the fetal production of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is a hormone the fetus secretes into the mother's bloodstream. The female body appears to "interpret" high levels of hCG as a sign that a fetus is healthy and viable, and so does not spontaneously abort. Even the womb is a hostile environment where one's own interests must be protected at the cost of another's. Even in that most sacred place we are potential murder victims.


(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5316/placenta-picture.jpg)

For the sake of truth, clog, hCG is produced by the placenta, not the fetus itself. Shortly after a woman's egg is fertilized by her male partner's sperm and is implanted in the lining or the womb (uterus), a placenta begins to form. This organ will help nourish the developing new life. The placenta produces hCG, whose presence, along with other hormones, helps maintain the early stages of pregnancy. After implantation, the level of detectable hCG rises very rapidly, approximately doubling in quantity every two days until a peak is reached between the weeks 6 and 8. Over the next 10 or more weeks, the quantity of hCG slowly decreases. After this point, a much lower level is sustained for the duration of the pregnancy.

(http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/7376/placentahelduh5.jpg)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: BIR on September 06, 2008, 02:57:38 PM

[...]

Are you aware that violence against loved ones (with fatal consequences) is primarily due to people having a gun in their home? Sure, many cases are unfortunate accidents, but many others are not. An individual trained in using a gun would not miss the target under most circumstances with the end result being killing their family members and friends.


False. Even a dumbass with no training at all would not miss the "target" under the circumstances - you're too close to your "loved ones" to miss the "target.
Title: Re: "All is One"
Post by: Savvy? on October 09, 2008, 11:40:50 AM

I think it's the Ouroboros, the snake or dragon devouring its own tail -- the alchemical symbol par excellence of eternal recurrence.


(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


The concept of cyclical patterns is very prominent in Indian religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism among others. The Wheel of life represents an endless cycle of birth, life, and death from which one seeks liberation. In Tantric Buddhism, a wheel of time concept known as the Kalachakra expresses the idea of an endless cycle of existence and knowledge. A notable new religious movement called the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University teaches that this "eternal return" happens once every exactly 5,000 years in an identically repeating cycle ending with a total annihilation of humanity via an imminent and desirable Nuclear Holocaust, civil war and natural disaster information which is generally hidden from non-members.


Watch "Groundhog Day" - in the film, Murray plays Phil Connors, an egocentric Pittsburgh TV weatherman who, during a hated assignment covering the annual Groundhog Day event (February 2) in Punxsutawney, finds himself repeating the same day over and over again. After indulging in all manner of hedonistic pursuits, he begins to reexamine his life and priorities.

(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1687/189656groundhogdaypostely6.jpg)

Self-centered TV meteorologist Phil Connors, his producer Rita, and cameraman Larry from the fictional Pittsburgh television station WPBH-TV9 travel to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover the annual Groundhog Day festivities with Punxsutawney Phil for the station. Phil, who has grown tired of this assignment, grudgingly gives his report and attempts to return back to Pittsburgh when a blizzard that he predicted would miss the area has shut down the main roads, forcing Phil and his team to stay in town an extra day. Phil wakes up to find that he is reliving February 2 again; everyone else is repeating the same actions as from what he saw the day before, seemingly unaware of the time loop, though Phil remains aware of the events of the previous day. At first he is confused, but when the loop continues, he starts to try to take advantage of the situation without fear of long-term consequences, learning secrets from the town's residents, seducing women, stealing money, and driving drunk. However, attempts to get closer to Rita are repeatedly shut down. With each passage of the loop, Phil becomes despondent; during one loop, he kidnaps Punxsutawney Phil and after a long police chase, drives over a cliff, appearing to kill both Phil and the groundhog. However, Phil wakes up in the next loop and finds that nothing has changed; further attempts at suicide are just as fruitless as he continues to find himself back at the start of February 2. Phil continues to try to learn more about Rita, and when he reveals his situation to her and the knowledge he's gained about the town's residents, she opens up to him and suggests he try to use his situation to help benefit the town. Phil uses her advice and the time loop to help as many people around town as possible, as well as bettering himself such as by learning to play jazz piano and speaking French. Phil, now engrossed with the town's celebration, is able to admit his love to Rita, and she accepts and returns her love. After the evening dance, the two retire together to Phil's room. Phil wakes up the next day, and finds the time loop has broken; it is now February 3 and Rita is still in bed with him. As the team prepare to return to Pittsburgh, Phil and Rita talk about eventually settling down in Punxsutawney.

Referring to unpleasant, unchanging, repetitive situations as "Groundhog Day" was widespread throughout the U.S. military very soon after the movie's release in February 1993. A magazine article about the aircraft carrier USS America mentions its use by sailors in September 1993. Around the same time, the movie was a favorite of soldiers in Mogadishu, who identified with the protagonist's situation. By March 1994, there was a defensive zone in Somalia called Groundhog Station. In February 1994, the crew of the USS Saratoga referred to its deployment in the Adriatic Sea, in support of Bosnia operations, as Groundhog Station. A speech by President Clinton in January 1996 specifically referred to the movie and the use of the phrase by military personnel in Bosnia. Even today in the Iraq War, "Groundhog Day" is American military slang for any day of a tour of duty in Iraq.
Title: Re: "All is One"
Post by: Modus Barbara on October 11, 2008, 12:37:34 PM

I think it's the Ouroboros, the snake or dragon devouring its own tail -- the alchemical symbol par excellence of eternal recurrence.


(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"


Sounds like smth in line with that punch line, "We are not #1, You are!" :)
Title: Daley on Hudson slayings: Too many guns
Post by: ooptt on October 28, 2008, 06:39:04 PM
Mayor Richard Daley today expressed condolences to Jennifer Hudson's family for the death of the singer-actress' mother, brother and nephew. He said the killings were examples of too many guns on the streets. "When you have someone with access to a gun it shows you what they will do," Daley said. The mayor said police could not have prevented the killings because they occurred inside the home and allegedly in a domestic-related incident. Daley made his remarks at an unrelated event at a Chicago public school.

Autopsy: Hudson nephew shot multiple times

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/CRIME/10/28/illinois.shootings.hudson/art.julian.king.ap.jpg)

Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Hudson's 7-year-old nephew -- one of three Hudson relatives found slain in Chicago since Friday -- died of multiple gunshot wounds, the Cook County medical examiner's office said Tuesday. But the office, which performed an autopsy on Julian King's body Tuesday, didn't answer questions about when the child died and where his wounds were. Julian was found shot to death in an abandoned Chevrolet Suburban on Chicago's West Side on Monday. Police had begun a massive search for him on Friday, the day Hudson's mother, Darnell Donerson, and brother, Jason Hudson, were found shot to death in their South Side Chicago home. Julian was the son of Jennifer Hudson's sister, Julia Hudson, who police said found Donerson's body and called police. William Balfour, 27, who is Julian's stepfather and Julia Hudson's estranged husband, was detained Friday for questioning in connection with the slayings, a police representative said. Julian was not with Balfour when he was detained.

Balfour was later transferred to prison on a parole violation, the police representative said. According to the Department of Corrections, he spent nearly seven years in prison for attempted murder, vehicular hijacking and possessing a stolen vehicle. The Illinois Department of Corrections said it could not comment on the specifics of Balfour's parole or how he violated it. Balfour will be held until a prisoner review board takes up his case, a department representative said. That process could take several weeks. No charges had been filed against anyone in connection with the slayings. On Tuesday, William Balfour's mother, Michele Davis-Balfour, said her son had nothing to do with the slayings. "I'm sorry this happened to this girl's family, but they're not going to put it on my own son," she said. "He hasn't been framed, but he's been wrongly accused." She said that after her son got out of prison, he was trying to improve his life by working at a sandwich shop. She also said he obtained his GED in prison by studying horticulture. "How many minorities are in the penitentiary and study horticulture?" she said.

Authorities have said the Chevrolet Suburban in which Julian was found was Jason Hudson's. During the search for the boy, postings on Julia Hudson's MySpace page showed a picture of Jason Hudson and the white SUV. Julia Hudson posted a message on the page after her son's body was found. "His li'l soul is at ease, I take comfort in knowing that Julian is with my mother and my brother and most of all the Lord, and now he's my angel, he's protecting me," she wrote. "Now because I chose to do what was natural to me and love someone, it cost me my beautiful family, my wonderful beautiful loving supporting mother, Darnell, my true blue baby brother, Jason, I love u big baby ... and last but never not least, my only son, Julian," she added.










Title: Mother: My son not involved in Hudson killings
Post by: rhizome on October 29, 2008, 11:49:23 AM

Autopsy: Hudson nephew shot multiple times

[...] On Tuesday, William Balfour's mother, Michele Davis-Balfour, said her son had nothing to do with the slayings. "I'm sorry this happened to this girl's family, but they're not going to put it on my own son," she said. "He hasn't been framed, but he's been wrongly accused." She said that after her son got out of prison, he was trying to improve his life by working at a sandwich shop. She also said he obtained his GED in prison by studying horticulture. "How many minorities are in the penitentiary and study horticulture?" she said.

[...]




The mother of a "person of interest" in the slayings three of Jennifer Hudson's family members insisted Monday night on CNN that her son was not involved in the crime. "No means did my son do this," Michele Davis-Balfour said on CNN's "Nancy Grace." She said that her son, William Balfour, 27, was with a girlfriend Friday when the bodies of Jason Hudson and Darnell Donerson, Hudson's brother and mother, were discovered shot to death in their South Side Chicago home. "My son's alibi was [he was] with one of his girlfriends, OK?" Davis-Balfour said. When Grace asked which girlfriend he was with Friday, the mother said her son was with a woman named Diana on Friday night, and with a woman named Kate on Saturday morning.

Davis-Balfour said that her son is separated from Julia Hudson, Jennifer Hudson's sister. It was Julia Hudson who first discovered her mother's body, police said. Authorities were then notified, and they arrived at the home and found Jason Hudson's body. At that time, a massive search began for Julian King, who is Julia Hudson's 7-year-old son and Balfour's stepson. That hunt ended Monday when the boy's body was found by police in an abandoned white Chevrolet Suburban SUV on the West Side of Chicago. A Tuesday autopsy report revealed Julian had been shot multiple times, but the Cook County medical examiner's report did not say when the child died and where his wounds were.









http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/29/hudson.shootings/index.html
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: dwelling on October 29, 2008, 01:20:05 PM

Interesting avatar, palimpsest -- does it symbolize anything, or it's just some picture without any special meaning?


(http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6607/untitledyg9.jpg)


Matter and anti-matter.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: munee on October 30, 2008, 03:38:09 PM
Could you expand a bit, dwelling?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: boci on November 11, 2008, 03:25:37 PM

In October 2003, the Daily Mirror published a letter from Princess Diana in which, 10 months before her death, she wrote about a possible plot to kill her by tampering with the brakes of her car, that her husband was planning 'an accident' in her car, brake failure and the like. 
 

Is it somewhere online where we can take a look at?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: pome on November 17, 2008, 05:59:55 PM

You've got to be kidding me with this thread - an individual who has the intent to kill will do it with whatever he finds on his way - for example, cars are known to have been used extensively as weapons. Cars as weapons are less used to kill than in road accidents, but do occur from time to time. The driver may be drunk or on drugs, or just homicidal - cars can be weapons of death just as fearful as the loaded guns.


in lieu of, it's not that simple - the very act of getting a gun shows strong intent on your part to harm someone. You drive a car to get to work, to the store and so on, and only incidentally to harm someone.
Title: Re: Daley on Hudson slayings: Too many guns
Post by: jeffislouie on November 19, 2008, 12:13:30 PM
Mayor Richard Daley today expressed condolences to Jennifer Hudson's family for the death of the singer-actress' mother, brother and nephew. He said the killings were examples of too many guns on the streets. "When you have someone with access to a gun it shows you what they will do," Daley said. The mayor said police could not have prevented the killings because they occurred inside the home and allegedly in a domestic-related incident. Daley made his remarks at an unrelated event at a Chicago public school.

Autopsy: Hudson nephew shot multiple times

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/CRIME/10/28/illinois.shootings.hudson/art.julian.king.ap.jpg)

Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Hudson's 7-year-old nephew -- one of three Hudson relatives found slain in Chicago since Friday -- died of multiple gunshot wounds, the Cook County medical examiner's office said Tuesday. But the office, which performed an autopsy on Julian King's body Tuesday, didn't answer questions about when the child died and where his wounds were. Julian was found shot to death in an abandoned Chevrolet Suburban on Chicago's West Side on Monday. Police had begun a massive search for him on Friday, the day Hudson's mother, Darnell Donerson, and brother, Jason Hudson, were found shot to death in their South Side Chicago home. Julian was the son of Jennifer Hudson's sister, Julia Hudson, who police said found Donerson's body and called police. William Balfour, 27, who is Julian's stepfather and Julia Hudson's estranged husband, was detained Friday for questioning in connection with the slayings, a police representative said. Julian was not with Balfour when he was detained.

Balfour was later transferred to prison on a parole violation, the police representative said. According to the Department of Corrections, he spent nearly seven years in prison for attempted murder, vehicular hijacking and possessing a stolen vehicle. The Illinois Department of Corrections said it could not comment on the specifics of Balfour's parole or how he violated it. Balfour will be held until a prisoner review board takes up his case, a department representative said. That process could take several weeks. No charges had been filed against anyone in connection with the slayings. On Tuesday, William Balfour's mother, Michele Davis-Balfour, said her son had nothing to do with the slayings. "I'm sorry this happened to this girl's family, but they're not going to put it on my own son," she said. "He hasn't been framed, but he's been wrongly accused." She said that after her son got out of prison, he was trying to improve his life by working at a sandwich shop. She also said he obtained his GED in prison by studying horticulture. "How many minorities are in the penitentiary and study horticulture?" she said.

Authorities have said the Chevrolet Suburban in which Julian was found was Jason Hudson's. During the search for the boy, postings on Julia Hudson's MySpace page showed a picture of Jason Hudson and the white SUV. Julia Hudson posted a message on the page after her son's body was found. "His li'l soul is at ease, I take comfort in knowing that Julian is with my mother and my brother and most of all the Lord, and now he's my angel, he's protecting me," she wrote. "Now because I chose to do what was natural to me and love someone, it cost me my beautiful family, my wonderful beautiful loving supporting mother, Darnell, my true blue baby brother, Jason, I love u big baby ... and last but never not least, my only son, Julian," she added.


Actually, a logical conclusion that can be drawn from this sad story is exactly the opposite of what Mayor Dummy Daley said.  If the Hudson family had been allowed to own and possess a firearm, this nutbag would have at least thought twice about killing anyone for fear that he himself might be shot.
This is where the argument for a gun ban falls apart.  Chicago has an awful record of gun violence and evidence supports the notion that banning firearms from the city has led to a rise in gun related violence.  Criminals don't care about gun bans.  Citizens get the raw end of the stick, and people die, because criminals know that law abiding citizens have no means of protection.  There is absolutely no reason for a criminal to be even the least bit scared of breaking in to a home and pulling a gun.  They know that Chicago residents are unarmed and, therefore, powerless to stop anyone who does break the law and own a gun.
The hudson tragedy could have been averted quite easily.  Thanks to the gun ban, many many more Chicagoans will die when a criminal pulls a gun.
Title: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Post by: Master of Ceremonies on December 07, 2008, 02:44:40 PM

A WOMAN RECENTLY ASKED HOW I could, in good conscience, write an instruction book on murder.

"How can you live with yourself if someone uses what you write to go out and take a human life?" she whined.

I am afraid she was quite offended by my answer. It is my opinion that the professional hit man fills a need in society and is, at times, the only alternative for "personal" justice. Moreover, if my advice and the proven methods in this book are followed, certainly no one will ever know.

The book is so effectively written that its protagonist seems actually to be present at the planning, commission, and cover-up of the murders the book inspires. Illustrative of the nature and duration of the criminal partnership established between Hit Man and its readers who murder is the following "dialogue" that takes place when the murderer returns from his first killing:

Quote
I'm sure your emotions have run full scale over the past few days or weeks.
There was a fleeting moment just before you pulled the trigger when you wondered if lightning would strike you then and there. And afterwards, a short burst of panic as you looked quickly around you to make sure no witnesses were lurking.

But other than that, you felt absolutely nothing. And you are shocked by that nothingness. You had expected this moment to be a spectacular point in your life...The first few seconds of nothingness give you an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh out loud. You break into a wide grin. Everything you have been taught about life and its value was a fallacy.


You've got to be kidding us, lawn! You obviously don't have the slighest idea what does it feel like to kill. Here it is how researchers have described the whole process:

Concern about Being Able to Kill. Holmes' research indicates that one of the soldier's first emotional responses to killing is a concern as to whether, at the moment of truth, he will be able to kill the enemy or will "freeze up" and "let his buddies down." Interviewers and researchers have verified that these are deep and sincere concerns that exist on the part of most soldiers, and it must be remembered that only 15-20% of U.S. World War II riflemen went beyond this first stage. Too much concern and fear can result in fixation, resulting in an obsession with killing on the part of the soldier. This can also be seen in peacetime psychopathologies when individuals become fixated or obsessed with killing. In soldiers -- and in individuals fixated with killing in peacetime -- this fixation often comes to a conclusion through step two of the process: killing. If a killing circumstance never arises, individuals may continue to feed their fixation by living in a fantasy world of Hollywood-inspired killing, or they may resolve their fixation through the final stage, rationalization and acceptance.

The Killing Stage: "Without even thinking." Usually killing in combat is completed in the heat of the moment, and for the modern, properly conditioned soldier, killing in such a circumstance is most often completed reflexively, without conscious thought. Being unable to kill is a very common experience. If on the battlefield the soldier finds himself unable to kill, he can either begin to rationalize what has occurred, or he can become fixated and traumatized by his inability to kill.

The Exhilaration Stage: "I had a Feeling of the Most Intense Satisfaction." The adrenaline of combat can be greatly increased by another high: the high of killing. What hunter of marksman has not felt a thrill of pleasure and satisfaction upon dropping his target? In combat this thrill can be greatly magnified and can be especially prevalent when the kill is completed at medium to long range. Fighter pilots, by their nature, and due to the long range of their kills, appear to be particularly susceptible to such killing addiction. For some combatants the lure of exhiliration may become more than a passing occurrence. A few may become fixated in the exhiliration stage and never feel remorse. 

The Remorse Stage: A Collage of Pain and Horror. The tremendous and intense remorse and revulsion associated with a close-range kill is expressed in these words:

Quote
"... my experience, was one of revulsion and disgust... I dropped my weapon and cried... There was so much blood... I vomited... And I cried... I felt remorse and shame. I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up."

Whether the killer denies his remorse, deals with it, or is overwhelmed by it, it is nevertheless there, almost always. The killer's remorse is real, it is common, it is intense, and it is something that he must deal with for the rest of his life.

The Rationalization and Acceptance Stage: "It Took All the Rationalization I Could Muster." The next personal-kill response stage is a lifelong process in which the killer attempts to rationalize and accept what he has done. This process may never truly be completed. The killer never completely leaves all remorse and guilt beyond, but he can usually come to accept that what he has done was necessary and right. In personal accounts of those who have killed one may notice the use of specific words. At first, for instance, use of words such as "he" "him" and "his" shows the recognition of the killer's humanity. But then the enemy's weapon is noted, the rationalization process begins, and "he" becomes "the body" and ultimately the "gook." Once the process begins, irrational and irrelevant supporting evidence is gathered, and the possession of, say, U.S.-made shoes and a watch becomes a cause for depersonalization rather than identification.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: opinion on January 22, 2009, 11:50:03 AM

So what's your point pil? Her mother was a racist period.


No doubt she's a racist - the point is that she shouldn't be!

:)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Peter s Father In Law on January 23, 2009, 09:57:42 AM

Well, the fact is that it's the police that deals with violent and dangerous criminals. For instance, local cops deal with many more drugs kingpins than all the other agencies put together. It's all about perception and promotion - for God's sake, Herbert Hoover was a public relations guy who could have hit big with ad campaigns!


Who's Herbert Hoover? Are you talking about the 31st President of the United States? I don't see how he relates to "campaign ads" and the like


Maybe s/he's talking about J. Edgar Hoover? Just a suggestion...
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: Nisi on January 29, 2009, 01:11:26 PM

(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."

Damn, that's harsh.  Especially considering that would make her the mother of a whore and the princes of England sons of a whore.  Ouch


Taken into account her character and convictions, I'm surprised how it's possible she did not kill Diana WITH HER OWN HANDS!


QIR, don't you think she acted the way she did towards Diana just to be able to make a little name for herself?
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: qiverori on February 01, 2009, 10:38:15 AM

Taken into account her character and convictions, I'm surprised how it's possible she did not kill Diana WITH HER OWN HANDS!


QIR, don't you think she acted the way she did towards Diana just to be able to make a little name for herself?


Not really, Nisi. I think she had material gains in the process.
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: dinner on February 03, 2009, 07:34:21 PM

Taken into account her character and convictions, I'm surprised how it's possible she did not kill Diana WITH HER OWN HANDS!


QIR, don't you think she acted the way she did towards Diana just to be able to make a little name for herself?


Not really, Nisi. I think she had material gains in the process.


I don't think so, qivero. Imagine her, however, defending Diana's actions (going with Muslim men, etc). Everyone would say she's defending her because every mother loves her children, no matter how bad they are/believed to be.

Now, imagine her scolding Diana. People would feel sorry for her, because her mother -- who's supposed to defend her -- is not. So, in actuality, Diana is better off in front of the public eye when her mother calls her names and says she is a "whore."
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: d Artagnan on February 04, 2009, 04:28:06 PM

[...] It is not like in some countries where there are virtually no laws and people set the record straight themselves. It is in these countries that the right to bear arms would prove detrimental. For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.


Well, if people wonder why ex-Communist countries seem miserable, remember that it's less than 20 years since the fall of Communism, and that every parent in these countries was raised and educated under the old regime. It's a part of their personality whether they like it or not. Although they live in democracies, the way parents and teachers think changes more slowly than shop signs and TV commercials. People born in the '90s were brought up in a democracy, but they do not have a Western way of thinking. Their educators are often confused by the new order, and some institutions, like the police, are still more totalitarian than democratic.

When the people born during the 1990s and afterwards have children, between 2010 and 2025, that will be the first generation untouched by Communist thinking -- apart from a small amount of influence from grandparents. If these children reach adulthood between 2030 and 2045, this generation will take high-level positions in society around 2050. That's when you can expect ex-Communist countries to really become Western societies.
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: phaslee on February 04, 2009, 04:54:39 PM

Not really, Nisi. I think she had material gains in the process.


I don't think so, qivero. Imagine her, however, defending Diana's actions (going with Muslim men, etc). Everyone would say she's defending her because every mother loves her children, no matter how bad they are/believed to be.

Now, imagine her scolding Diana. People would feel sorry for her, because her mother -- who's supposed to defend her -- is not. So, in actuality, Diana is better off in front of the public eye when her mother calls her names and says she is a "whore."


Oh please, you've got to be kidding me, dinner!
Title: Re: "All is One"
Post by: revolve on February 04, 2009, 05:45:16 PM

I think it's the Ouroboros, the snake or dragon devouring its own tail -- the alchemical symbol par excellence of eternal recurrence.


(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY.

Whereas Trungpa's blue pancake falls from above, like the Cakravartin's wheel, as the sky miraculously solidifies; the 'stone of saturn' hovers ominously above the mountain; Dali's Christ hangs magnificently on a hypercube suspended in midair; and the Wizard of Oz's head floats in the air above his throne - here, in the bootstrap image, we have a somewhat pathetic variation on the same theme. For while one can lift OTHER objects by pulling upward on them, it would ordinarily be considered physically impossible to life one's self this way; only a fool would try to levitate himself by pulling upward on his own bootstraps.

Or a wise man, perhaps, who is prepared to take advantage of the liminocentric structurings of reality. The bootstrap image is, after all, like the others, an image of self-transendence - and is all the more poignant an example of it when juxtaposed with the picture of an ordinary man or woman using nothing more than his/her own hands to lift his/her own body off the ground. In this image the mundane is brought into stark contrast with the supernatural.

Interestingly, it is one that is intimately connected conceptually to the notion of self-initiated MOVEMENT (which, amongst other things, implies 'freedom'), and perpetual motion (a machine that can perpetuate is own motion, provide its own source of energy, fuel itself) - the POSSIBILITY of which scientists have seriously pursued for centuries. At some level, the image prompts us to ask if it is really possible that there are forms of human endeavor in which we become literally rise above ourselves. Can we reach into a higher-dimensional space and bring back from it something 'real'? Might 'mythic storytelling' and 'ritual' constitute such forms of endeavor? If so, we might suspect that the tools that are essential in these process - the 'tropes' (or 'figures of speech') without which myth and ritual could not exist - would be somehow capable of tapping into the liminocentric organization of consciousness in order to achieve this goal of transcendence. How, precisely?

'Self-similar', in that the pattern the whole displays is like (or identical to) to the pattern displayed by its parts. It is thus, by definition, a 'fractal' design and closely related to structures displaying 'liminocentric organization'. For when the top and bottom levels of a multi-level heirarchical structure are not only self-similar but identical (and thus indistiguishable), that structure in effect 'wraps back around on itself' in a way that qualifies as 'liminocentrically organized'. When hierarchy is conceived as composed of a series of contexts, one nested within the other, a liminocentrically structured hierarchy will be one in which the innermost level is identical to the outermost. The structure reflexively links up with itself by turning itself inside-out, as it were. The capacity to 'turn itself inside-out' is what enables the human being to psychologically 'bootstrap lift', to transcend itself.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: revolve on February 04, 2009, 06:00:40 PM
'We are parrots'. Why this statement seemed to resist a hundred years worth of extensive anthropological exegesis? Because anthropologists, lacking any better explanation, seem to inevitably revert - that the insistence on the literal truth of the statement simply 'embod[ies] the intractable resistance of the savage mind to our own culture's standards of rationality'? Mary Doniger O'Flaherty, the Mircea Eliade Professor of the History of Religions in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, had similar concerns in mind. But, in contrast to Turner, she tended to see the cup (or shall we say the egg basket) as half full. 'The Hindus', she says, referring to the joke about the man who believed himself to be a chicken, 'get some very real eggs from their metaphysical illusions'. But not without transcending themselves in a way that can be difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to describe.

A man complained to a psychiatrist that his brother thought himself to be a chicken; when asked why he did not seek a cure for his brother or have him put into an asylum, the man replied, 'Well, we need the eggs'.

How you get real eggs from metaphorical chickens? She examines the dramatic STRUCTURE of the storylines in Indian myth. Interestingly, the two paths converge - both lead to a deeper understanding of the features and functions possessed by the special kind of organization that we have called 'liminocentric'. And wouldn't it be ironic if, after all is said and done, it turned out to be the Western scientist who takes his imaginary eggs MOST seriously, MOST literally? The activity of science requires a kind of 'transcendence' similar to what the Bororo dancers and Indian storytellers seek to achieve by virtue of their semantic machinations. For scientists to break out of one paradigm and into another requires the same kind of self-awareness and bootstraps shift of perspective that is required for a dreamer to realize that he is dreaming in order to wake up. It requires a leap. Bootstrap-lifting is precisely what the Indian mystics are trying to do with their paradoxical stories... And in a very methodical manner - she shows us how they accomplish this - through the kind of non-linear, looped STRUCTURING of their storylines that we have called 'liminocentric organization'. It is precisely this kind of organization that characterizes that other product of the Indian imagination that has proven so interesting to depth psychologists in the twentieth century, and to us in this paper - the mandala.

If we are right, it is also the key structural feature characterizing human consciousness itself, which helps not only to explain self-consciousness (the capacity of consciousness for self-referential looping), but also how human beings can be self-organizing entities who participate in 'co-creating' their own worlds. Most importantly, it begins to explain how individuals affect self-change.
Title: Trope-a-dope
Post by: revolve on February 04, 2009, 06:04:10 PM
Using the terms 'metaphor', 'metonymy', and 'synecdoche', we can respectively bring into relief different ASPECTS of the relationship underwriting the 'semantic magic' that characteristically takes place in myth and ritual. The chart below identifies the (psychological) foundation on which each figure of speech relies.

(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4994/63032746fr6.jpg)

Metaphor - x is like y. Using a metaphor, we say, 'Jack's a turkey'. In our mind he's LIKE a turkey. The two are, with respect at least to certain intents and purpose, indistinguishable. So we can substitute 'turkey' for 'Jack', and when asked, 'What's Jack?' we could reply, 'A turkey'.

Metonymy - x is close to y. Using metonymy as a figure of speech, we can say, 'He chases skirts' and mean by that sentence that he chases women. Similarly, George Harrison's old guitar is worth a lot of money. Not merely because it gently weeps, but because he used it and sang about its weeping; it was close to him. It STANDS for him in a way that touches people deeply. If we were to get close to it by owning it, it would be the same as getting close to HIM. We'd feel like we were in his presence. In the same way, the 'Shroud of Turin' is considered sacred because Jesus was presumably wrapped in it, and certain 'mantras' are considered powerful because by repeating them highly enlightened beings have somehow invested them with their power.

Synecdoche - x is part of y. Touching a lock of John Lennon's hair, the tooth of the Buddha, or the bones of a famous saint, is the same as making contact with that individual. Or when one airplane pilot (part) drops a bomb on a bridge in Yugoslavia, we say 'NATO (whole) is bombing the Serbs'.

Metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche can be combined in complex ways, according to Turner, with very interesting results. On top of metonymy (The bird can fly, because it has feathers. So if we take its feathers, we can fly), we superimpose metaphor (Flight is the same as 'transcendence', so possessing the feather will enable us to transcend ourselves). This is how feathers become SYMBOLS of transcendence. But sometimes they are also more than mere symbols. This happens when we believe the object to have become, as a result of this semantic process, somehow literally IMBUED with 'transcendence' - as a result, perhaps, of the 'projection of control' (as Turner would have it) that we exercise, in participating in this myth/ritual, over the mythic/ritual process itself! The feather becomes, as it were, an attribute of a transcending power, and that power can be metonymically assimilated by the acquisition of the attribute.

The 'POETIC FUNCTION', also has 'a profound affinity with synecdoche'. Poetic construction utilizes the same patterns of relationship as does myth and ritual. It has a profound affinity with synecdoche. To paraphrase Jaobson's notion of poetic construction in tropic terms, it consists in a 'play of tropes' similar to that identified in the ethnographic examples: the basic move consists in the transformation of a metonymic combination into a metaphoric equivalence, followed (in more complex poetic or ritual forms such as those discussed) by a further transformation of the metaphoric relation thus established into a metonymic consistuent of a higher-level totality. This use of the same pattern of relations in alternating tropic modes to construct higher levels of coherence or integration is the essence of poetic construction.

As an ethnographic example of 'tropic play', Turner takes the activities of Bororo and Kayapo dancers. When the metaphorical associations of transcendence and form-creating power of the feathered costumes, songs, and movements of the Bororo and Kayapo dancers are ritually employed to effect the transformation and re-creation of social relations, the result is a dynamic synecdoche, in which the ritual acts and costumes become parts of a whole which they create in their own image. The whole is created in the image of its part. God (and/or 'society' - what Teilhard de Chardin used to call the 'noosphere') is created in the human being's image, so that (s)he can fully participate, for the first time, in his/her own divine nature. Without projecting a greater whole, and participating in it, the part would never come to know its 'transcendent' essence.

Transcendence knows itself only through the act of transcending; and only through pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps do we become, paradoxically, who we most fully are. Furthermore, in doing this, we construct 'meaning', and this takes place 'through the shift in perspective accomplished by the metaphoric identification, as metonymically contiguous parts of a more powerfully integrated totality brought into being by ritual action and 'spiritual' power'. Lest we begin to think that this type of activity occurs only in the 'religious' domain, or is exclusively the domain of peoples who are gullible, superstitious, or primitive -- yet, these cultural metaphors of magical transubstantiation have more in common, from both a functional and a structural standpoint, with the metaphorical components of structures of scientific theory analyzed by Bicchieri than with the rhetorical figures of speech and stylistic ornamentations which normally serve as type cases in literary and anthropological discussions of tropes. In both the scientific and the cultural cases ... metaphor and its corollary tropic constructs in the play of tropes serve, not as ornaments for precoded denotative meanings expressed elsewhere by transparent referential constructions, but as the central building blocks in the construction of a meaningful world.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: revolve on February 04, 2009, 06:17:46 PM
Through 'tropic play', in other words, certain intrapsychic contradictions will be resolved. But not without having introduced into the system a certain element of 'irony' (i.e., the 'use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning). This can only be accomplished through a STRUCTURE that is 'reflexive' (bent backward, onto itself) - what we have called liminocentric organization - which manifests in language as 'synecdoche'. The 'liminal', anomalous elements  - which we usually relegate to the periphery of consciousness - will be invited into the 'center' of the personality, as the focus of attention. In doing this it is as if 'contradiction' is forced inward, but also heirarchically 'upward' - to a higher level of semantic organization - 'irony' in the process. We loop back on ourselves (ironically becoming something else in the process) - or, conversely - we become something else, only to discover, ironically, that this makes us more fully what we originally are.

It is 'synecdoche' that provides the overall structure within which the CONSTRUCTION of meaning takes place. The 'interdependence of metaphoric and metonymic relations', he says, occurs 'within the encompassing structure of synechdoche.' This is because the synecdochal relationship has the power to integrate while SIMULTANEOUSLY separating: The synecdochic structure of the ritual process is the essential framework for maintaining the simultaneous separation and integration of the two orders - nature (as the order of araras [i.e., parrots]) and society (as the order of humans) - upon which the meaning and efficacy of the process depends. Incommensurables are integrated, but only by appealing (via synecdochal figures of speech) to a structuring process which can identify the whole with the part (at levels of organization that are DISTANT from each other) while permitting 'apparent differences' to be displayed between levels that are closer in proximity to each other, levels that occupy the intermediary zone between the two extremes. This is the strategy that we saw being used in the mandala, when conceived as a liminocentrically structured whole with the innermost center wrapping back around on the outermost periphery.

If nature were self-similar at ALL levels the world would be a dull, repetitious affair. Or if it were different at all levels of organization, without a recursive feature, it would branch out always irreversibly in new directions, without the possibility of returning back to itself. There would be no accomodation for feedback or feedforward loops. But when self-similar only at the extremes, while apparently different at intermediary levels, 'similarity' and 'difference' are held in creative tension. They overlap, and we can begin to MIX categories and speak even of the 'similarity of differences' and the 'differences between similarities'. The manner in which myth is STRUCTURED is examined in order to explain how we get real eggs out of metaphoric chickens, and transcend ourselves in the process. That leads inexorably to an exploration of a special KIND of structure that is identical to the 'liminocentric organization.'
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: revolve on February 04, 2009, 06:25:54 PM
The Buddhist mandala, to which we have devoted much attention in this series, can be taken as 'representing' the Buddhist cosmos, as we have shown, in the same way that Hindu cosmoloy, its precursor, does. Here it is a diagram of one kind of Indian universe.

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3302/hindunm5.gif)

The chart includes 'something that resembles a stack of flapjacks on the bottom, a cupcake suspended in midair above the world beneath a flying saucer, a swarm of mosquitoes above the flying saucer, and various triangles, squares, crescent moons, and suns scattered here and there'. The geometrical forms about which she speaks are actually located, like in the Buddhist system that we've described, to the east, west, north and south of the concentric circles in the central plane - where the four 'continents' are which surround 'Mt Meru'. Its outermost ring of mountains, called 'World-not-World', is a paradox that allows us to stop drawing circles. Paradoxes abound at the periphery of such systems. They may be of a visual or verbal sort, and sometimes they involve a peculiar twist or strange loop, as does this one. For it is a universe that is organized like a 'mobius-strip', and thus instead of piling [nested contexts] up in a line, it piles them up in a rope that snakes back on itself. This nesting of contexts in a non-linear fashion which loops back on itself is called 'liminocentric organization'. It is most appropriate that the entire configuration depicted in the diagram is closed within a sphere - which is precisely how one one might choose to depict a liminocentric 'reality', as a space that is warped so drastically as to wrap back on itself, creating a finite domain that does not permit one to exit from it.

With its three-dimensional shape, concentric circles, and vertical levels, the diagram is not unlike the 'torus' (donut shaped figure) which, in an earlier paper, we took as the shape capable of most aptly representing the liminocentric structure of both the mandala and consciousness itself. The process of awakening from the dream is expressed, in narrative terms, as the movement from one frame of discourse to another frame, which envelops the first. ... The tale of the monk [in the YOGAVASISTHA] is one in which each dream seems to be nested inside another until we encounter the final, innermost dream and find that it is identified with the outermost dream... The Hindu universe is a kind of four-dimensional Mobius strip, finite but unbounded, negatively curved (as our own universe is now said to be, according to some scientists. ... The outside is thus the same as the inside.

This looped nesting of contexts comprises either a door to transcendence and liberation ('nirvana') or a 'vicious circle' ('samsara'). As Vasistha [the hero in one Indian myth] plunges further and further into that boundary that is the center, he pulls away the layers one by one, in a kind of Mobius striptease, until he finds himself back again in his own hut - the center of his own universe'. This, of course, is like the extraordinary set of nested Chinese boxes, as a metaphor for 'liminocentric organization' - in which the innermost box is identical with the outermost.

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8676/orudrabm8.gif)

In this myth the story starts with a monk. In his meditation the monk dreams of a man (Jivatva), who falls asleep and dreams a Brahmin who dreams a prince who dreams a king who dreams a celestial woman ... and so forth and so on. Until we finally arrive at an imagined goose who dies while thinking of the swan of Brahma, and thus becomes that swan in the next life. The swan then sees Rudra, and thinks with certainty, 'I am Rudra'. Rudra eventually realizes that all of these beings are his own previous rebirths. So he goes to the monastery where the monk is sleeping, and 'joins his mind' to the monk's. And when the monk looked at Rudra, who was the monk himself and was also made of Jivata and the others, he was amazed, though one who was truly enlightened would not have found cause for amazement. Then Rudra and the monk went, the two of them together, to a certain place in a corner of the space of the mind where Jivata had been born, and then they saw him asleep ... Joing their minds to his mind, they woke him up, and then, though they were one, they had three forms: Rudra and Jivatva and the monk. Though they were awake, they did not seem to be awake; they were amazed, and yet not amazed, and they stood there in silence for a moment, like images painted in a picture. [And after all the other 'imagined' creatures are similarly 'awakened'] they all rejoiced and looked upon one another's rebirths, seeing illusion for what it was...

This story is a highly sophisticated variant of a much loved Indo-European folk motif, which includes the story of Chicken-Licken (who told Henny-Penny who told Foxy-Loxy ... that the sky was falling'. This is a noteworthy observation in light of the series of images (starting with Trungpa's - the sky turning into a big blue pancake and falling on one's head) which emphasize the EMBODIMENT of 'emptiness'/enlightened mind. Such storylines force us to consider the possibility that the outer level [of the storyline] is identical with one of the levels that we had considered to be inside the outer level, or farther down the linear sequence. And we are led inexorably to the conclusion that the story is not only circular and nested, it is looped.

One can associate this kind of structural organization with 'riddles about people who are the parents of their own parents'. It is a structural form that allows for a situation in which people can conjure up objects to which they can later attribute PRIORITY - so that the objects can, further down the line, be imagined to have conjured THEM up. This seems to be the prerequisite for what we might call 'ordinary' or 'semantic' magic - the creation of a projection that is so real that we feel we can actually pull ourselves up by hanging onto it. We call this kind of conjuring act as 'ordinary' because it happens all the time in science - every branch of science has its ridiculous notions, which, when nevertheless taken literally, turn out useful in the material world - 'imaginary numbers', for example.

In Indian logic, 'unreal' courses of action are indeed a prerequisite for successful outcomes - In [Indian] logic, to know that a course of action is intrinsically unreal is an argument to DO it, not an argument NOT to do it... when Rama realizes that he is not really a king, he can go on and rule.
Title: Re: Bootstrapping
Post by: Spotting_Trains on February 05, 2009, 06:02:40 PM

(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY.

Whereas Trungpa's blue pancake falls from above, like the Cakravartin's wheel, as the sky miraculously solidifies; the 'stone of saturn' hovers ominously above the mountain; Dali's Christ hangs magnificently on a hypercube suspended in midair; and the Wizard of Oz's head floats in the air above his throne - here, in the bootstrap image, we have a somewhat pathetic variation on the same theme. For while one can lift OTHER objects by pulling upward on them, it would ordinarily be considered physically impossible to life one's self this way; only a fool would try to levitate himself by pulling upward on his own bootstraps.

Or a wise man, perhaps, who is prepared to take advantage of the liminocentric structurings of reality. The bootstrap image is, after all, like the others, an image of self-transendence - and is all the more poignant an example of it when juxtaposed with the picture of an ordinary man or woman using nothing more than his/her own hands to lift his/her own body off the ground. In this image the mundane is brought into stark contrast with the supernatural.

Interestingly, it is one that is intimately connected conceptually to the notion of self-initiated MOVEMENT (which, amongst other things, implies 'freedom'), and perpetual motion (a machine that can perpetuate is own motion, provide its own source of energy, fuel itself) - the POSSIBILITY of which scientists have seriously pursued for centuries. At some level, the image prompts us to ask if it is really possible that there are forms of human endeavor in which we become literally rise above ourselves. Can we reach into a higher-dimensional space and bring back from it something 'real'? Might 'mythic storytelling' and 'ritual' constitute such forms of endeavor? If so, we might suspect that the tools that are essential in these process - the 'tropes' (or 'figures of speech') without which myth and ritual could not exist - would be somehow capable of tapping into the liminocentric organization of consciousness in order to achieve this goal of transcendence. How, precisely?


Here it is another parallel:


(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.


In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.

Title: Re: Right to Bear Arms
Post by: Quadro on February 08, 2009, 11:07:13 AM

Taken into account her character and convictions, I'm surprised how it's possible she did not kill Diana WITH HER OWN HANDS!


QIR, don't you think she acted the way she did towards Diana just to be able to make a little name for herself?


Not really, Nisi. I think she had material gains in the process.


No material gains at all. Do you really think she's being compensated, getting any money, when talking * & ^ % about her?
Title: Example: "Lend me your ear"
Post by: Robotarium on February 08, 2009, 02:32:36 PM

Using the terms 'metaphor', 'metonymy', and 'synecdoche', we can respectively bring into relief different ASPECTS of the relationship underwriting the 'semantic magic' that characteristically takes place in myth and ritual. The chart below identifies the (psychological) foundation on which each figure of speech relies.

(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4994/63032746fr6.jpg)

Metaphor - x is like y. Using a metaphor, we say, 'Jack's a turkey'. In our mind he's LIKE a turkey. The two are, with respect at least to certain intents and purpose, indistinguishable. So we can substitute 'turkey' for 'Jack', and when asked, 'What's Jack?' we could reply, 'A turkey'.

Metonymy - x is close to y. Using metonymy as a figure of speech, we can say, 'He chases skirts' and mean by that sentence that he chases women. Similarly, George Harrison's old guitar is worth a lot of money. Not merely because it gently weeps, but because he used it and sang about its weeping; it was close to him. It STANDS for him in a way that touches people deeply. If we were to get close to it by owning it, it would be the same as getting close to HIM. We'd feel like we were in his presence. In the same way, the 'Shroud of Turin' is considered sacred because Jesus was presumably wrapped in it, and certain 'mantras' are considered powerful because by repeating them highly enlightened beings have somehow invested them with their power.

Synecdoche - x is part of y. Touching a lock of John Lennon's hair, the tooth of the Buddha, or the bones of a famous saint, is the same as making contact with that individual. Or when one airplane pilot (part) drops a bomb on a bridge in Yugoslavia, we say 'NATO (whole) is bombing the Serbs'.


Wikipedia features an interesting feature on the subject:

1. Metonymy only: Analyze "ear" metonymically first — "ear" means "attention" (because we use ears to pay attention to someone's speech). Now when we hear the phrase "lending ear (attention)", we stretch the base meaning of "lend" (to let someone borrow an object) to include the "lending" of non-material things (attention), but beyond this slight extension of the verb, no metaphor is at work.

2. Metaphor only: Imagine the whole phrase literally — imagine that the speaker literally borrows the listener's ear as a physical object (and presumably the person's head with it). Then the speaker has temporary possession of the listener's ear, so the listener has granted the speaker temporary control over what the listener hears. We then interpret the phrase "lend me your ear" metaphorically to mean that the speaker wants the listener to grant the speaker temporary control over what the listener hears.

3. Metaphor and metonymy: First, analyze the verb phrase "lend me your ear" metaphorically to mean "turn your ear in my direction," since we know that literally lending a body is nonsensical. Then, analyze the motion of ears metonymically — we associate "turning ears" with "paying attention", which is what the speaker wants the listeners to do.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ce_caprice_d enfant on February 09, 2009, 08:37:59 PM

[...]

For it is a universe that is organized like a 'mobius-strip', and thus instead of piling [nested contexts] up in a line, it piles them up in a rope that snakes back on itself. This nesting of contexts in a non-linear fashion which loops back on itself is called 'liminocentric organization'. It is most appropriate that the entire configuration depicted in the diagram is closed within a sphere - which is precisely how one one might choose to depict a liminocentric 'reality', as a space that is warped so drastically as to wrap back on itself, creating a finite domain that does not permit one to exit from it.

[...]

This looped nesting of contexts comprises either a door to transcendence and liberation ('nirvana') or a 'vicious circle' ('samsara'). As Vasistha [the hero in one Indian myth] plunges further and further into that boundary that is the center, he pulls away the layers one by one, in a kind of Mobius striptease, until he finds himself back again in his own hut - the center of his own universe'. This, of course, is like the extraordinary set of nested Chinese boxes, as a metaphor for 'liminocentric organization' - in which the innermost box is identical with the outermost.

[...]


(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9932/7babushkadollsoe3.jpg)
Babushka Dolls

A set of matryoshkas consists of a wooden figure which can be pulled apart to reveal another figure of the same sort inside. It has, in turn, another figure inside, and so on. The number of nested figures is usually five or more. The shape is mostly cylindrical, rounded at the top for the head and tapered towards the bottom, but little else; the dolls have no hands (except those that are painted). Traditionally the outer layer is a woman, dressed in a sarafan.
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: Kito on February 10, 2009, 07:44:56 PM

Not really, Nisi. I think she had material gains in the process.


I don't think so, qivero. Imagine her, however, defending Diana's actions (going with Muslim men, etc). Everyone would say she's defending her because every mother loves her children, no matter how bad they are/believed to be.

Now, imagine her scolding Diana. People would feel sorry for her, because her mother -- who's supposed to defend her -- is not. So, in actuality, Diana is better off in front of the public eye when her mother calls her names and says she is a "whore."


Oh please, you've got to be kidding me, dinner!


Exactly, phaslee, that's weird!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: perçi on February 12, 2009, 06:41:43 PM

[...]

For it is a universe that is organized like a 'mobius-strip', and thus instead of piling [nested contexts] up in a line, it piles them up in a rope that snakes back on itself. This nesting of contexts in a non-linear fashion which loops back on itself is called 'liminocentric organization'. It is most appropriate that the entire configuration depicted in the diagram is closed within a sphere - which is precisely how one one might choose to depict a liminocentric 'reality', as a space that is warped so drastically as to wrap back on itself, creating a finite domain that does not permit one to exit from it.

[...]

This looped nesting of contexts comprises either a door to transcendence and liberation ('nirvana') or a 'vicious circle' ('samsara'). As Vasistha [the hero in one Indian myth] plunges further and further into that boundary that is the center, he pulls away the layers one by one, in a kind of Mobius striptease, until he finds himself back again in his own hut - the center of his own universe'. This, of course, is like the extraordinary set of nested Chinese boxes, as a metaphor for 'liminocentric organization' - in which the innermost box is identical with the outermost.

[...]


(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9932/7babushkadollsoe3.jpg)
Babushka Dolls

A set of matryoshkas consists of a wooden figure which can be pulled apart to reveal another figure of the same sort inside. It has, in turn, another figure inside, and so on. The number of nested figures is usually five or more. The shape is mostly cylindrical, rounded at the top for the head and tapered towards the bottom, but little else; the dolls have no hands (except those that are painted). Traditionally the outer layer is a woman, dressed in a sarafan.


Does "babushka" (babooshka) mean grandma in Russian? Just curious, you know...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: coban on February 12, 2009, 06:59:56 PM

This looped nesting of contexts comprises either a door to transcendence and liberation ('nirvana') or a 'vicious circle' ('samsara'). As Vasistha [the hero in one Indian myth] plunges further and further into that boundary that is the center, he pulls away the layers one by one, in a kind of Mobius striptease, until he finds himself back again in his own hut - the center of his own universe'. This, of course, is like the extraordinary set of nested Chinese boxes, as a metaphor for 'liminocentric organization' - in which the innermost box is identical with the outermost.

[...]


(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9932/7babushkadollsoe3.jpg)
Babushka Dolls

A set of matryoshkas consists of a wooden figure which can be pulled apart to reveal another figure of the same sort inside. It has, in turn, another figure inside, and so on. The number of nested figures is usually five or more. The shape is mostly cylindrical, rounded at the top for the head and tapered towards the bottom, but little else; the dolls have no hands (except those that are painted). Traditionally the outer layer is a woman, dressed in a sarafan.


Does "babushka" (babooshka) mean grandma in Russian? Just curious, you know...


Yes, perçi!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: footfite on February 12, 2009, 07:59:56 PM

Could you expand a bit, dwelling?


(http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4855/matterantimatter3ms1.png)
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4855/matterantimatter3ms1.png

The Proton has P-halflets on its surface and the Negatron N-halflets on its surface. When they come into contact, the P-halflets and N-halflets combine, pairing up once again to form photons, one at a time.

When the two come into contact, they pull each other apart because they are in contact and neither is viable because of the range limitation. The halflet pairing proceeds very rapidly until nothing remains.

It may be possible that the process might stop when a mass equal to a free neutron is achieved. It would be interesting to have analysis of the reaction to see what the product consists of. Is there a free neutron remaining? Is the product all gammas of the same energy level? If so, then that is what should be used to "pop" a neutron.



In particle physics, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, where antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example, an antielectron (a positron, an electron with a positive charge) and an antiproton (a proton with a negative charge) could form an antihydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter would lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs.

There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether there exist other places that are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this asymmetry between particles and antiparticles developed is called baryogenesis.
Title: Power is Dead
Post by: barabar on February 12, 2009, 08:49:39 PM

Well, the fact is that it's the police that deals with violent and dangerous criminals. For instance, local cops deal with many more drugs kingpins than all the other agencies put together. It's all about perception and promotion - for God's sake, Herbert Hoover was a public relations guy who could have hit big with ad campaigns!


There was this French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, who said that power is dead, dissolved, canceled and made hyperreal through simulations, models, codes. In the new Postmodern universe of mediablitz, we no longer have power per se -- but something like a simulation of power. For instance, Ronald Reagan ruled like a king merely by posing -- by offering signs of power in photo ops and sound bites -- rather than by exercising power.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ca r l e s s on February 18, 2009, 07:41:35 PM

[...] Mary Doniger O'Flaherty, the Mircea Eliade Professor of the History of Religions in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, had similar concerns in mind. But, in contrast to Turner, she tended to see the cup (or shall we say the egg basket) as half full. 'The Hindus', she says, referring to the joke about the man who believed himself to be a chicken, 'get some very real eggs from their metaphysical illusions'. But not without transcending themselves in a way that can be difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to describe.

A man complained to a psychiatrist that his brother thought himself to be a chicken; when asked why he did not seek a cure for his brother or have him put into an asylum, the man replied, 'Well, we need the eggs'.

How you get real eggs from metaphorical chickens? She examines the dramatic STRUCTURE of the storylines in Indian myth. Interestingly, the two paths converge - both lead to a deeper understanding of the features and functions possessed by the special kind of organization that we have called 'liminocentric'. And wouldn't it be ironic if, after all is said and done, it turned out to be the Western scientist who takes his imaginary eggs MOST seriously, MOST literally? The activity of science requires a kind of 'transcendence' similar to what the Bororo dancers and Indian storytellers seek to achieve by virtue of their semantic machinations. For scientists to break out of one paradigm and into another requires the same kind of self-awareness and bootstraps shift of perspective that is required for a dreamer to realize that he is dreaming in order to wake up. It requires a leap. [...]


This is really really strange . totally beyond comprehension .. would you care to explain a bit ...
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: halivero on February 19, 2009, 12:01:22 PM

[...] People born in the '90s were brought up in a democracy, but they do not have a Western way of thinking. [...]

[...]


You mean people born in the '80s..?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: p o l k a on February 19, 2009, 01:10:22 PM

[...]

[...] This seems to be the prerequisite for what we might call 'ordinary' or 'semantic' magic - the creation of a projection that is so real that we feel we can actually pull ourselves up by hanging onto it. [...]


Excuse my ignorance, but is this kinda the same thing as this other one:


Holding the Tensions

Carl Jung gave the image of the alchemical vessel in which processes of sublimation and purification take place. Psychotherapy provides this same kind of containment whereby tensions and paradoxes are charged with energy until they give way to active transformation.
Even nuclear fusion requires the hot plasma to be contained long enough for fusion reactions to take place. The same is true of scientific and philosophical ideas. David Bohm regretted the speed with which Neils Bohr tried to resolve the tensions inherent in quantum theory. Within a year of Heisenberg's discovery of matrix mechanics Schrodinger produced his wave equation and Bohr and others quickly demonstrated the mathematical equivalence of the two approaches. Yet both approaches do subtly different things - Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, for example, makes no reference to an underlying or background space. If only the two approaches could have been held in tension, emphasizing both their similarities and differences, Bohm argued, then it may have been possible to develop a much deeper theory, one that transcended conventional notions of space-time and allowed for an intimate connection with relativity.

A similar tension exists today between scientific approaches to "consciousness theory" (in which the origin of mind is attributed to objective structures and processes within the brain - albeit some of them being quite novel, such as Penrose's notions of the gravitational collapse of the wave function) and our subjective experiences of consciousness, rare moments of transcendence and those inexplicable occurrences in which the irrational breaks through in dreams, synchronicities, etc. Then there are other phenomena which seem to have a foot in both camps, these include Jung's psychoid which is neither matter nor mind and both, the aforementioned synchronicities and phenomena such as projective identification. Rather than seeking a quick resolution between the subjective and objective it is valuable to hold on to the differences and paradoxes and use them as pointers to something deeper. Now that psychology has discovered the objective within consciousness (Jung's collective unconscious) so too physics must discover the subjective in matter; in fact, physics must come to terms with "the irrational in matter". Science is producing ever more delicate information about processes within the brain. Openness to Eastern meditative traditions brings with it alternative theories of consciousness and subtle matter. Transpersonal psychology addresses the idea of collective mind. Quantum theory and chaos theory help to loosen the appeal of traditional mechanistic theories and reductionistic approaches and, in the process, providing us with new metaphors. Nevertheless we are still victim to over two hundred years of mechanistic thinking and we work within a language that reflects and supports such a world view. As soon as we speak about mind and consciousness we find ourselves talking about objects, concepts, things, localization in space, separation and movement in time. Yet both quantum theory and Eastern psychology point to timelessness, active process and the ultimate illusion of the personal observer. It is very difficult for us, even now, to fully embrace the quantum paradigm, even the mathematics of quantum theory is still (paradoxically) expressed using space-time coordinates when the same theory predicts the break down of space-time structure. And time itself, as Prigogine points out, has never treated correctly in physics. Up to now it has been used more as an ordering parameter 't', and conveys nothing of the dynamics in which being gives way to becoming.

[...]

Projective Identification.

Projective Identification offers a paradigm case of the tension between physics and psychic experience. Projective identification should be distinguished from Transference, in which the patient "projects" fantasies (for example, involving authority figures) onto the blank screen of the therapist. In projective identification something more akin to a literal projection of psychic material takes place. It may happen that, during a session, the therapist  experiences, without necessarily being aware that something unusual is going on, memories, feelings attitudes, associations that lie outside his or her experience. At the time, however, these are indistinguishable from "true memories". It is only later that the therapist realizes that the patient has injected external psychic material into the therapist's mind.

It is very difficult to account for what happens. Clearly some aspect of the patient's psyche - a set of associations or a complex of memories and desires - has fragmented from the self and been projected outwards into the mind of the therapist. In its new location, and for a limited time, it integrates with the therapist's consciousness to produce awareness of new memories and associations. The patient is now able to view what was previously the very painful contents  of personal consciousness in an objective way for now it belongs to someone else. The final result, hopefully, is to allow this material to be reabsorbed and reintegrated in a more creative manner.

Projective identification appears to be a strategy used by the mind to produce movement and transform. One thinks of certain chemical reactions which, although energetically advantageous, cannot take place because energy barriers between molecules cannot be overcome. Although chemical transformation is desired it is prevented by internal energy barriers. Using a catalyst, however, molecules adsorb on its surface and "borrow" energy needed to undergo the necessary transformations whereby they can react together. After reacting they are then free to leave the catalyst's surface. In Projective Identification the mind of the therapist may play a similar role, allowing certain complexes to be absorbed into a new psychic location where they new become "free" and undergo transformation. Presumably a healthy mind also possesses a "psychic immune system" which is able to detect such projected material and eventually reject it so that alien memories do not possess the therapist for too long.

Projective Identification forces us in the position that "something" is being projected across space, from one mind to the other. This seems a more satisfying explanation than the assumption that both minds have access to some common pool of consciousness - for something seems to be shot, like  the darts of a Medicine Person, from one to another. Of course this does not mean than "mind" as such is projected. It may simply be some sort of encoded information about mental processes, structure and content that projects from one brain to another. Once in its new location this information activates (like a virus) and makes use of mental energy to form a new centre in consciousness. I suggest that Projective Identification is more common than we assume. It is, for example, the mechanism whereby art (and music) operate in that aspects of the psyche are projected outwards and encoded on the surface of a painting as gestures, masses, shapes colours and everything else that makes up a "visual code". The listener or viewer can also "enter into" the work and gain access to this activity of encoded information which then acts to induce transformations of consciousness. This, I believe, is the meaning of early cave art. It is involves a transformation of consciousness and operates at the level of the psychoid.


Title: The Alchemy of Love
Post by: ÷ on February 19, 2009, 05:15:58 PM

[...]

[...] This seems to be the prerequisite for what we might call 'ordinary' or 'semantic' magic - the creation of a projection that is so real that we feel we can actually pull ourselves up by hanging onto it. [...]




Holding the Tensions

Carl Jung gave the image of the alchemical vessel in which processes of sublimation and purification take place. Psychotherapy provides this same kind of containment whereby tensions and paradoxes are charged with energy until they give way to active transformation.
[...]

[...]



In this talk I would like to employ the metaphor of the alchemical vessel in which transformation takes place so that gold is born out of base metal. An essential feature of all alchemical processes is the necessity for heat. It is heat that converts a solid into a vapor by means of the process of sublimation. Heat releases the spirit from the gross. Heat brings about change and is the animating principle that produces birth. To further this metaphor I would like to suggest that the name we give to this creative heat is love. During the middle ages the alchemist, artisan and artist considered themselves as midwives who assisted nature in her striving for perfection. Artistic creation was not thought in terms of bringing about novelty, or an expression of the ego, but rather the artist was someone who assisted at a birth, or one who acted as a catalyst within a natural process of transformation and purification. Even at a time when alchemy was being replaced by chemistry this thread continued in the arts. Durer, for example, portrayed himself as if he were Christ the Redeemer. But this was not an act of megalomania but rather of modesty for, following in the image of Christ, the artist and artisan sought to efface themselves in assisting nature in here climb to perfection. His etching entitled Melancholia I contains many references to the nigrido state, or first stage in the alchemical working in which matter lies under the dark sun. It can be thought of as the manifestation of Primal Matter, or alternatively as the stage of death that follows the mystical marriage or union of opposites. Where the nigrido may be linked in some ways to a psychological depression it is also the first essential stage out of which all creation is born.

Carl Jung was deeply aware that the language of the alchemist contains profound insights on the nature of the process he termed individuation, for just as matter strives for perfection so each one of us strives for the realization of the true Self. For Jung, the alchemical working, the heating, crystallization, sublimation, distillation and refining were outward manifestations of deep inner transformations. Reference to the alchemical stages can also be found in Michelangelo's sculptures for the Medici tomb in Florence. While all the figures are finely worked and polished, the face of Girno is roughed out and partly obscured by his arm - again a reference to the "dark sun" of the nigrido". Aurora, a male torso with female breasts appears to relate to the androgyny state in which male and female principles have married. This thread of alchemical continues through Marcel Duchamp and on to Jackson Pollock, one of whose paintings is specifically titled "Alchemy." The poet Arthur Rimbaud in his "A noir" equates the vowels with the various colors associated with each stage of an alchemical working: "A noir", with the nigrido, "E blanc" with the white albido and "I rouge" the red, gold, Chemical wedding of King and Queen.

The contemporary British sculptor, Anish Kapoor, considers that in the greatest of artistic works some alchemical transformation has taken place so that in a certain sense the material existence of the work has been changed. Likewise, the American artist, Janine Antoni often deals with bridging that gap between inner and outer, between our own interior existence and the world of matter which we all inhabit. Again we could suggest that the power to bridge that gap, that embracing of the world, is the power of love. Love transcends, love creates a new space in which the artist, the viewer and the world of art all co-exist and move beyond boundaries. The greatest acts of creation therefore exist in a space where there is "no-self." In love one moves beyond the distinction of self and other, inner and outer, matter and spirit and enters a new unity. To view creativity, both scientific and in the arts, the metaphor of alchemy allows us to perceive the creative act through a new lens. Certainly Erza Pound gave us the maxim "Make it New," but the idea that creativity must necessarily imply novelty is somewhat of a modem concept. The icon maker worked to breathe life into a preexisting archetypal form. Likewise, painters of the middle ages were given commissions in which figures, gestures and symbolic colors were clearly defined in their contract. Novelty would have been out of the question. Indeed Varsari in his "Lives" lavishes the greatest praise not for innovation but for those who could produce works like "the ancients".

In this light we can characterize creativity as involving one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Making something new and original
2. Renewing and making fresh an existing form
3. Healing, unifying and bringing together.

To focus on this third characteristic for a moment. Earlier we had referred to love as the ability to transcend boundaries, to move beyond the distinction between self and other. Something similar happens during psychotherapy. For much of the time it is the patient who is speaking while the therapist generally exercises what Freud called "non-judgmental listening." As the sessions continue, the therapist may give prompts, reflect back to the patient what has been said, or at times throw out a little suggestion or even advice. In more intense cases, the processes of transference begin in which intense feelings are invoked within the patient. In those cases where projective identification occurs the therapist may even become directly aware of contents from the patient's mind. But in all these cases the therapist still attempts to bracket his or her own feelings, thoughts and reactions in order not to contaminate the therapeutic process. Nevertheless several skilled therapists have told me of those magical moments in which all boundaries disappear, moments in which it is not possible to say "where is the healing," or who is the patient and who is the therapist. On those occasions patient and therapist enter the alchemical vessel together and are warmed by unconditional love. It is in those moments that the miracle of healing takes place. (The Jungian therapist Beverly Zabriskie has referred to this as the healing of "frozen accidents," that is, the melting away of those "accidents" from childhood that have remained frozen within us. Therapy and insight may go some way towards the process of thawing, but in the last analysis it requires the heat of love.)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ÷ on February 19, 2009, 05:22:18 PM
If I am relying so much on the terminology of alchemy in this talk it is because I have in mind that period in the history that we are all sensitive to, that period the contemporary composer John Tavener calls the "one simple memory." This was the time when life, spirit, art and the seeds of science were one and unified. It was a period when the individual, social and spiritual dimensions of human beings were one. Today we have tended to fragment knowledge, learning and teaching, yet this sense of unity has always been present in the greatest representatives of art, science and the spiritual quest. Science could perhaps be called a loving, seeing, passionate search for "what is." It is an act of perception that is so penetrating that it moves beyond surface appearances. It is the desire for truth, no matter where that search leads. It is truth to observation. And when we speak of truth of observation, or respect for experimental results, we must bear in mind Einstein's advice to the young Heisenberg, that positivism has its limits for it is the theory which suggests where we should look and what is of importance in the phenomenological world. In this sense to suggest that science deals with objective facts and constructs theories out of these facts is something of an over-simplification. History, culture and even language suggest ways in which we look at the world, experience it, and communicate these insights to others. It is out of this fertile soil that scientific theories are born. In turn these theories suggest to us what is of significance in the world. A very obvious example is the way the first half of the twentieth century was dominated by scientific theories and experiments that dealt with systems very close to equilibrium and perturbed by only small impulses, vibrations or flows of energy. What was known as perturbation theory worked well for such systems, allowing accurate calculations to be made and compared with careful experiments. And so the scientific world concerned itself with only one area of experience. But then Prigogine's "far from equilibrium" thermodynamics came along, as did the approach known as chaos theory and the theory of non-linear systems. Suddenly everyone was looking a bifurcation points, chaos, strange attractors, shock waves, fractal structures and large or sudden changes. Armed with new mathematical and theoretical tools, science now busied itself with an area of experience that had hitherto been dismissed as irrelevant, monstrous or unimportant.

Nevertheless, even if we admit that the way we look at the world, and what we consider to be of significance is to some extent determined by cultural frameworks and scientific fashions, we still assume that the facts are "out there" and that they reside in an objective world. But closer examination of the lives of individual scientists demonstrates that this may again be an oversimplification. Barbara McLintock spent her life working with maize and discovered the so-called "jumping genes." Like a Mayan medicine person, she seemed to have made a deep identification with the interior life of maize and is reported to have said that "truth has a mystical origin both inside and outside myself." The biologist, Brian Goodwin, has drawn attention to Goethe's views on science, in that rather than confining nature to the artificial situation of the laboratory one should seek ways in which nature is allowed to speak to us and so provide us with "the example worth a thousand." In this light Goodwin has referred to the possibility of developing an "objective intuition" within biology. In the case of the physics, David Bohm argued that his body was created out of the same matter as the rest of universe. In one way, the laws of physics could be discovered outside, though laboratory experiments. Yet in another, they were also accessible inside, within the body itself. In this respect Bohm referred to an interior sense of movement, to subtle tensions of the body, which would reveal to him insights directly translatable into mathematical formulae. I recall that Bohm once told me he had spoken to Einstein about this and the latter related how he would squeeze a rubber ball while thinking about the equations of space-time and that these muscular movements and tensions became translated into mathematical insights.

I find in this a remarkable parallel to the artist Cezanne who was also deeply concerned about the truth of perception and of discovering facts in the world. Cezanne described the act of painting as of sitting and observing his "little sensations". In this he would sometimes move his head to the left and sometimes to the right, his sensations would change and the painter, with a truly passionate eye, would constantly cast doubt on what he was seeing. "Cézanne's doubt," as Merleau-Ponty described it, can be seen on the canvas as tentative brush strokes, one in parallel to another, as he questions the position of a tree branch, or asks how far in the middle distance should be placed a piece of vegetation. In this the passionate quest of the artist, inspired by a dispassionate love, becomes unified with the scientist in their mutual search for truth. Again, this pursuit of truth is motivated by a form of love. Every scientist begins life as one who experiences awe, wonder and respect for the natural world. Love is the motivating force for the scientific quest and when it is absent science becomes sterile. It is even possible to say that when love and passion are absent that science can become dangerous, for those who live without love, are in danger of living without a deep ethical and moral sense. Above all scientists must always be aware of their responsibility towards science, nature and society.

Yet another dimension of this quest for truth comes in the form of beauty, or "elegance" as the mathematician would have it. Beauty may have gone out of fashion in contemporary art criticism but it has always been present in science. It is not sufficient to have a theory that explains the facts, or enables elaborate calculations to be made. A good theory must have a sense of inevitability about it. It must evoke that same sense of wonder we have in looking at nature herself. In the presence of a great theory we stand in awe at the universe it represents. If Galileo was the first to declare that God had written the book of nature in the language of mathematics, then those who have followed him declare that this mathematics must also be beautiful. The physicist, Paul Dirac, has spoken of the physical sensation he receives when engaged in a beautiful theory. The mathematician Roger Penrose points out that most mathematicians practice their art because it brings them in the presence of beauty. Indeed when a mathematician becomes stuck and is not clear about what to do next the best advice is to do the most beautiful thing possible. Thus, in mathematics, beauty is both an end in itself and a means to that end.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ÷ on February 19, 2009, 05:22:58 PM
So again we return to those three dimensions, the individual, social and spiritual or mystical. These must always be in balance within the life of the individual scientist, artist or religious person. Reason and logic are powerful forces but we should never forget Pascal's, "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know". In this I am reminded of one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century, Wolfgang Pauli, who, following his encounter with Carl Jung, was convinced that just as Jung had discovered the objective side to consciousness - the collective unconscious - so too physics must discover its subjective side. Pauli also spoke of "the irrational in matter". That is, the whole of nature can never be reduced to a rigid logic, but must always allow for the irrational and unpredictable. As Pauli's insights developed he began to speak of the unity of matter and psyche, as being one of the goals of physics. Indeed, he was to go even further and return to the alchemical dream of an interior working of matter and spirit within the alchemical vessel. Specifically he spoke of 'the resurrection of spirit in matter", feeling that spirit had left our experience of the material world with the rise of Cartesian and Newtonian science. Now, he felt, the era had dawned in which spirit would return to its proper place and the world would be unified - possibly Tavener's "one simple memory" would return. While to the scientific world Pauli was working on a unified field theory - one aspect of this was a unification of symmetry and antisymmetry, which Pauli spoke of in terms of Christ and the Devil - like an alchemist of old the greater work was being carried out in silence. Only Carl Jung and Pauli's closest assistants were aware of this great task. Yet in the end the story become dark for Pauli became deeply dispirited with both his the inner journey and his desire for a unified physics. A short time before his death from cancer Pauli abruptly ended his scientific collaboration with Heisenberg, abandoned his work and was haunted by dreams. A close associated commented that the element of "eros" had been missing from Pauli's life. The alchemical vessel had been sealed, matter and spirit were present, yet the transforming heat of love could not be generated.

To some extent Pauli's quest was echoed by that of David Bohm. Throughout his scientific career Bohm was inspired by a search for wholeness. He found the scientific world to have become badly fragmented, a fragmentation that extended into society itself, education and the general way we experience the world. His desire for a holistic world view led him to develop the notion of the Implicate order, which he felt was the ground out of which the Explicate Order emerges - the classical order of large scale objects, well defined in space and time and interacting via forces. The Implicate order, he believed was closer to the insights of "undivided wholeness" revealed through quantum theory. But this Implicate order did not embrace the world of matter and energy alone but also mind and consciousness. Indeed, in the parallel development of his Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory Bohm proposed the notion of "active information" as a new component in physics to form the triangle of matter-energy-information. Moreover since the electron can, in a certain sense, "read" the content of this active information then it could be said to exhibit a proto-mind. Thus, for Bohm, mind had been present in the cosmos from the beginning. Indeed mind and matter could be thought of as the north and south poles of a magnet. These poles can never be separated for when you cut the magnet in half you simply generate new north and south poles. Bohm's entire world-view was an embracing of wholeness and, if one includes his many interactions with Jiddu Krishnamurti, then there is also what could perhaps be called a spiritual dimension, in the sense that he believed it would be possible for the physical brain and human consciousness to be transformed by what was sometimes termed "the intelligence" that transcended time and space. Nevertheless, by the end of his life Bohm had become discouraged that he was unable to achieve a final synthesis. While I do not want to make too much of this, could it be that there is something perhaps missing in the scientific quest that compromises the final move towards wholeness? Or rather, is it that only a few exceptional figures, such as Pauli and Bohm, caught a glimpse of the direction in which the science of the future could move?

And should this be termed failure or possibly something else? To borrow yet again from the alchemical image, what maybe appeared as deep disappointment and even melancholia was in fact but the first stage of the alchemical working - the dark sun or nigrido stage in which it is first necessary to rest. When opposites enter in a mystical marriage they must first die if they are to be later reborn and baptized into the albido stage. Interestingly this stage is identified with the resurrection that follows the re-entry of spirit into matter. So rather than thinking in terms of failure and limitation, it could be that science has already entered the first stage of a new cycle in which it will pass into a period of the white moon, white in which all colors are united. Then, as the alchemical heat of love increases, through the yellow daybreak and on to the final stage when the white moon is raised to the condition of the golden sun and the King and Queen, spirit and matter, unite in the final mystical marriage. Within this condition we do indeed return to that "one simple memory" where spiritual, scientific and artistic values become one and the same.



David Peat
-Talk given at the conference "Works of Love: Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Altruism" Villanove University, June 2003.
Title: A Visual Metaphor
Post by: Chrysanthi on February 21, 2009, 03:11:56 PM

[...]

For it is a universe that is organized like a 'mobius-strip', and thus instead of piling [nested contexts] up in a line, it piles them up in a rope that snakes back on itself. This nesting of contexts in a non-linear fashion which loops back on itself is called 'liminocentric organization'. It is most appropriate that the entire configuration depicted in the diagram is closed within a sphere - which is precisely how one one might choose to depict a liminocentric 'reality', as a space that is warped so drastically as to wrap back on itself, creating a finite domain that does not permit one to exit from it.

[...]

This looped nesting of contexts comprises either a door to transcendence and liberation ('nirvana') or a 'vicious circle' ('samsara'). As Vasistha [the hero in one Indian myth] plunges further and further into that boundary that is the center, he pulls away the layers one by one, in a kind of Mobius striptease, until he finds himself back again in his own hut - the center of his own universe'. This, of course, is like the extraordinary set of nested Chinese boxes, as a metaphor for 'liminocentric organization' - in which the innermost box is identical with the outermost.

[...]


(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9932/7babushkadollsoe3.jpg)
Babushka Dolls

A set of matryoshkas consists of a wooden figure which can be pulled apart to reveal another figure of the same sort inside. It has, in turn, another figure inside, and so on. The number of nested figures is usually five or more. The shape is mostly cylindrical, rounded at the top for the head and tapered towards the bottom, but little else; the dolls have no hands (except those that are painted). Traditionally the outer layer is a woman, dressed in a sarafan.


Each of the following figures can be conceived as having three levels of organization. Each is a whole comprised of parts, and the parts are comprised of even smaller parts. At the highest level of organization all three figures are similar; they each comprise a letter 'T'. But each is also different - made up of different KINDS of parts, in different heirarchically arranged ordering patterns.

(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5261/73127599.jpg)
This configuration, which is a T (at the top or 'first' level of description) is made up of Xs (second level), which in turn are comprised of Os (third level). This arrangement is not fractal. The parts aren't identical to the whole, at any level of description.

(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2250/70072070.jpg)
Here is a T that is made up of smaller Ts, each of which are made up of even smaller Ts. This arrangement is a fractal arrangement, as the parts are identical to the wholes that they make up. It is indeed what we might call 'fully' fractal, in that it is fractal at EVERY level of organization. Level one is fractal with respect to its level-two parts; and each level-two part is fractal with respect to its level-three parts.

(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8231/86939118.jpg)
This arrangement might also be considered a fractal arrangement. But it is not 'fully' fractal. In fact, it is not fractal at the interface between any two adjacent levels of the heirarchy. For the large T is made up not of smaller Ts, but of Xs, and these Xs are not made up of smaller Xs, but of Ts. Nevertheless, it is easy to see that the larger T is actually ULTIMATELY made up of small Ts. We might describe this arrangement as a 'once removed' fractal organization.

One can easily imagine a structure that would be a 'twice removed' fractal arrangement - a T made up of Xs made up of Os made up of Ts, for example. Or we might imagine a 'thrice removed' fractal structure, or one that is '10 times removed'. When, like the figure immediately above, a structure is fractal with respect only to the highest and lowest levels, it is fractal at its two extremities and we may say that it thus resembles what we have been calling a 'liminocentric' structure. It is (relatively) 'indistinguishable' at its highest and lowest levels of organization.

If one is to believe what 'string theory' in physics has to say, extremely large distances in the physical world may be LITERALLY identical to (i.e. indistinguishable from) extremely small distances. Physical reality may thus exhibit a fractal identity at its extremities, and turn out to be a liminocentric structure.
Title: Liminocentric Structures: Holographic Organization
Post by: Chrysanthi on February 21, 2009, 03:19:19 PM
Liminocentric structures also seem sometimes to manifest strange, paradoxical features - such as 'holographic' organization, in which the part appears to 'contain' the whole. By examining the following figures it is easy to see how holographic structure is a natural consequence of liminocentric organization.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1931/81312286.jpg)
The figure depicts a series of nested frames. Frame-B is nested inside of Frame-A, Frame-C is nested within Frame-B, and so forth. But what if we should discover that A and E are identical and indistinguishable?

Suppose, for instance, you walk through the front door of your house and enter the hall. Then you proceed up the stairs to the bedroom. You open the door to the bedroom, walk in, and walk toward the closet. But when you open the door to the closet and step in you find yourself back on the front porch, in front of the front door to your house. This is how one might experience a liminocentrically organized house, if there were such a thing.

If A and E are identical, then the above figure which diagrams a linear nesting order, would be a little bit misleading. The straight vertical dotted line might better be shown to wrap back on itself, in a circle.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5540/70293791.jpg)
It is a little more difficult to re-draw the figure so that the dotted line circles back on itself, but it might look something like this. Frame-A still provides the setting for Frame-B, and so forth, but the figure becomes non-linear. A looped heirarchy of contexts is shown.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/628/65719187.jpg)
If the same non-linear heirarchy is drawn in linear fashion - as an 'approximation' to the truth, let us say - any of the frames could be depicted as the 'bottom-line' frame, depending on how one wanted to punctuate or parse the series. So it makes just as much sense to think of A (depicted as the 'whole' in the first figure) as CONTAINED in E (depicted as the 'part' in the first one) as it does to think of E as contained in A.

This kind of arrangement - the looped series of nested-frames that we are calling a 'liminocentric' structure - has cropped up in various fields, where it has proven itself to be a useful model. The following diagram, for example, was used by Richard Schenchner, a Professor of Performance Studies at NYU, in his book "Between Theatre & Anthopology." He was trying to illustrate the fascinating 'suspension of disbelief' that characteristically takes place in theatre and performance art, in which there is an 'agreement to let the smaller frame AB become the larger frame AB1'. The resulting nested frames thereby assume what we would call a liminocentric arrangement.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5470/74583688.jpg)
Title: Consciousness as Liminocentrically Structured
Post by: Chrysanthi on February 21, 2009, 03:34:09 PM
All that need be done in order to conceive of the structure that is modeled as 'liminocentric' is to recognize the nested heirarchy of contexts as arranged in a non-linear fashion - with the beginning of the series wrapping back around on the other end, in a loop. But what does this 'looping back' mean EXPERIENTIALLY? For unless there is some experiential significance in seeing consciousness in this way modeling it as a liminocentric structure could turn out to be just a meaningless abstraction. Experientially, what it means for consciousness to have such a structure is that one winds up in the same place whether one NARROWS the scope of attention to the maximum possible extent (by 'concentrating' awareness) or WIDENS the scope of attention to the maximum possible degree (thereby diffusing awareness). At both extremities one experiences a 'pure', 'undifferentiated', or 'objectless' state of awareness. These two extreme mental states are indentical and indistinguishable, phenomenologically speaking. While IN the objectless state of awareness, there is nothing to distinguish the state arrived at by an extreme concentration of attention from the one arrived at by an extreme expansion of attention.

It may, however, be the case that the same state can be used in different ways, depending upon how one exits or enters it. For instance, there is an undifferentiated state arrived at by a concentration of attention that is called 'samyama' in Patanjali's 'Yoga Sutras'. One enters into this state by concentrating on an object, peeling away its successive conceptual layers. It is as if one is entering into the 'essence' of the object of meditation when the undifferentiated state that this process results in occurs. When one returns from the undifferentiated state, however, it is presumably with paranormal knowledge about the object - according to these sutras. We might describe what happens in such a process by saying that one 'intuits' something about the object by permitting oneself to enter so deeply into it as to experience its 'empty core'.

What about the undifferentiated state arrived at by diffusing attention? When we widen the scope of attention to include progressively larger frames, what happens? If our experience of 'self' arises out of our identification with the frames that remain in the background of awareness as we attend to objects in the foreground then the progressive widening of attention will make the series of nested frames explicit; so as one pulls back or 'zooms out', the larger, more inclusive frames are brought into focus and one 'steps out' of lower-level frames and lower-level self-identifications. The outer limit to this process is to bring 'everything' into attention, with nothing remaining in 'background awareness'. This would be commensurate to a realization of 'egolessness'. In either case - whether we expand or contract attention to its limit, consciousness winds up 'undifferentiated', lacking the bifurcation (into subject and object) that characterizes normal or 'everyday' consciousness.

Accomodating Mystical Knowledge about 'Extreme' States

In the West we tend to think of 'enlightenment' itself as an exceptional mental state, outside of (or separate from) ordinary states. But in many of the spiritual traditions of the East, enlightenment is described as, in essence, a 'realization' about the ultimate nature of the mind. Enlightenment is really nothing but the 'ordinary' state, as seen (and experienced) from a somewhat wider perspective, as it were. This is not unlike how the Newtonian frame which describes events in the material world at a HUMAN scale can be conceived as enclosed within a wider frame of explanation that is Einsteinian. Perhaps we can explain this by using a second visual metaphor, as follows.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1439/45903462.jpg)
donut w/hole in space

The torus is a donut-shaped topological surface. It is, roughly speaking, a three dimensional spherical shape, with a hole in the middle. Drawn on a two-dimensional surface, we'd get something like the figure to the left. The brown area is the donut itself. It is probably a chocolate donut. It is contained in a 'space' which turns out to be continuous with the 'hole' that occupies its center.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1567/26854595.jpg)
donut in space, seen from distance

But if we step back far enough from the donut we see only what looks like a solid object (as content) in the midst of an empty space (which appears as background). The hole at the center of the donut is too small to see, and goes unnoticed.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3037/47754367.jpg)
donut in space, seen from extreme distance

If we zoom back even further - extremely far - the donut itself becomes too small to see. There seems to be only empty space left. There is no background, no foreground, just one homogenous field.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6813/62598704.jpg)
closeup of donut w/hole

Or if we move, in the other direction, toward the torus and focus on it from a very close distance, we will see the hole in the donut (as the object of our attention) against the mass of the donut (which fills the background of our perceptual field). We are too close to the object to be able to see the space that surrounds it.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4086/58985927.png)
closeup of the hole

And if we get EXTREMELY close, entering into the hole in the donut, all we see is the space within the hole. The donut itself seems to 'disappear'. This space is indistinguishable from the space that is arrived at by backing far away from the donut.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4825/80258878.png)

But if we find the midpoint between these two extremes of distance, we see not only the mass of the donut - but also the hole in the middle, AND the space surrounding the donut. And we are in a good position to realize that the surrounding (outermost) space is in fact continuous with the enclosed (innermost) space. The two 'spaces' are indeed the same.

In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous. By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.

This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. But liminocentric organization not only provides a structure that explains why consciousness is inextricably paradoxical, and accounts for our sense of irony and mystery, it also permit us to appeal to logic (the 'law of the excluded middle') within certain limited and specifiable boundaries. Such a structure thus reconciles 'incompatibles' (logic and paradox, in this case) by conceiving of the system as odd or unusual (ie, 'paradoxical') ONLY at its extremes.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: graft on February 23, 2009, 08:13:55 PM
Chrysanthi, could you direct us to some website which explains in a bit of more detail how the concept of a liminocentrically-organized structure relates to holographic nature of the universe and the like?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: persirit on February 24, 2009, 12:59:31 PM

caracost, think about Sartre's famous conception of being and nothingness :)

Sartre tries to improve on Heidegger's famous, or infamous, dictum in "What is Metaphysics?" that 'nothingness nihilates' by saying 'Nothing does not nihilate itself. Nothingness "is nihilated"'. Heidegger too is trying to avoid the charge of holding that nothing in some sense exists, but Sartre thinks Heidegger makes a mistake in his formulation. By saying 'nothing nihilates' Heidegger imparts an agency to nothing; the power to nihilate, but this agency could hardly be efficacious unless it or that which exercises it existed. Sartre's 'Nothingness is nihilated' does not carry the logical or grammatical connotation of accomplishment. It is a putative affirmation of nothing's non-being logically consistent with that of Eleatic pre-socratic philosopher Parmenides. Sartre fails to observe that his passive rendering of Heidegger's active voice may have equally incoherently construed nothing as a subject of anihilation, and hence, something that exists.

Nonetheless, it is true acording to Sartre that there are absences. There are refusals and denials, acts of imagining that things could be otherwise. For example, in the celebrated passage from "Being and Nothingness" Sartre is expecting his friend Pierre to be in a cafe, but Pierre is not there. Sartre encounters nothingness. Sartre wonders whether this is a judgement or thought that Pierre is absent or whether there is an experience of Pierre's absence, an intuition of nothingness. Sartre knows there is a prima facie absurdity in speaking of the experience of nothing. Nothing is not anything, so an experience of nothing would not be an experince of anything. Nevertheless, Sartre decides that it is by sight that the absence of Pierre was detected. There was at least the phenomenon of seeing that Pierre is absent, even if not a seeing of Pierre's absence.

It is as if nothingness existed. Non-being is a component of the real. Nothingness is real even though nothingness is not. We may speak of absent friends, holes in the ground, negative and false propositions, purely imaginary states of affairs, fictitional characters as though they existed because nothingness possesses an appearance of being, a being it borrows from being.


The appearance of nothingness depends upon the appearance of being. For example, a hole in the wall exists in a borrowed sense because it is nothing over and above the arrangement of the remaining parts of the wall. An earthquake destroys a city and ontologically this is a redistribution of beings that to human beings is disastrous. After a storm there is no less than before, there is something else. It is the presence of the human reality in the world, being-for-itself, that makes the redistributions of beings called 'storms' or 'earthquakes' into cases of destruction.

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Sun M Patinka on February 25, 2009, 04:13:03 PM

Still, not every immoral act involving the termination of life can be classified as murder. Phenomenology is deceiving: the acts look the same (cessation of life functions, the prevention of a future). But murder is the intentional termination of the life of a human who possesses, at the moment of death, a consciousness (and, in most cases, a free will, especially the will not to die). Abortion is the intentional termination of a life which has the potential to develop into a person with consciousness and free will. Philosophically, no identity can be established between potential and actuality. The destruction of paints and cloth is not tantamount (not to say identical) to the destruction of a painting by Van Gogh, made up of these very elements. Paints and cloth are converted to a painting through the intermediacy and agency of the Painter. A cluster of cells a human makes only through the agency of Nature. Surely, the destruction of the painting materials constitutes an offence against the Painter. In the same way, the destruction of the fetus constitutes an offence against Nature. But there is no denying that in both cases, no finished product was eliminated. [...]


According to what's said here, would you think the 11-year old boy of this story can be charged also with "homicide of an unborn child"?

(http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2764/2008771067.jpg)

An 11-year-old boy is facing adult charges in the shooting death of his father's pregnant girlfriend, authorities said Saturday. Police say the boy shot Kenzie Marie Houk, who was 8 months pregnant, once at point-blank range in her farmhouse in western Pennsylvania. The boy, whose name was withheld by CNN because he is a juvenile, was charged with one count each of criminal homicide and homicide of an unborn child in the death of Houk, 26, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo told CNN. Houk's 4-year-old daughter found her in her bed Friday, according to police. The child alerted landscapers working near the home, who then called authorities.

"This is something that you wouldn't even think of in your worst nightmare, that you'd have to charge an 11-year-old with homicide," Bongivengo said, according to CNN affiliate WTAE. "It's heinous, the whole situation." Under Pennsylvania law, anyone over the age of 10 accused of murder or homicide is charged as an adult. If convicted, the boy faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, Bongivengo said. Authorities said the boy is the son of the victim's live-in boyfriend at the home in Wampum, about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. "At this point, we don't believe it's accidental," Bongivengo said. The weapon was a youth model 20-gauge shotgun, designed for use by children, that belonged to the boy, according to investigators. Bongivengo told reporters the household has no history of child abuse, but that an investigation is ongoing. Calls to the boy's public defender, Dennis Elisco, went unanswered Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/21/boy.homicide/index.html


What was his father thinking when allowing the boy to go about places with a real gun in his hands??? 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: ka p e l lu on February 26, 2009, 04:26:28 PM

Chrysanthi, could you direct us to some website which explains in a bit of more detail how the concept of a liminocentrically-organized structure relates to holographic nature of the universe and the like?


(http://homepage.mac.com/dave_rogers/images/141)

Brian Greene, a renowned physicist and a specialist in quantum field theory, made a presentation on current cutting-edge work in 'string theory' - a subject which happens also to be the topic of his new book, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory."

You can also hear a lecture of Brian Greene's on "Schedule Aspects of D-branes on Curved Space." Although his book is very easy to follow, and does not use technical language, the above lecture was not intended for the general public. What he is describing seems to be nothing short of a liminocentrically structured universe. As Greene recognizes, this leads to rather curious conclusions indeed! But they are not unlike the conclusions that mystics have offered for ages. Compare Greene's speck, for instance, which is 'physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above' to Blake's 'world in a grain of sand'. The difference between the two, of course, is that we normally hasten to explain away the proclamations of mystics as poetic hyperbole, whereas we expect the physicist to be LITERALLY describing the physical world!
Title: Epimenides paradox: "All Cretans are liars"
Post by: Yassou on February 28, 2009, 12:32:32 PM

(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4016/ouroborosnn2.jpg)
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY.


Here it is another parallel:


(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.


In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.



The Epimenides paradox is a problem in logic. It is named after the Cretan philosopher Epimenides of Knossos (alive circa 600 BC), who stated Κρῆτες ἀεί ψεύσται (Kretes aei pseystai), "Cretans, always liars". There is no single statement of the problem; a typical variation is given in the book Gödel, Escher, Bach, by Douglas R. Hofstadter:

Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: "All Cretans are liars."

It is commonly supposed that self-referential paradox arises when one considers whether Epimenides spoke the truth.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7175/150pxouroboros.png)
The Ouroboros, a dragon that bites its tail, is a symbol for self-reference.

Self-reference is a phenomenon in natural or formal languages consisting of a sentence or formula referring to itself directly, or through some intermediate sentence or formula, or by means of some encoding. Self-reference is possible when there are two logical levels, a level and a meta-level. It is most commonly used in mathematics, philosophy, computer programming, and linguistics. Self-referential statements can lead to paradoxes.

However, if Epimenides knew of one Cretan (other than himself) who is not a liar, his statement is a lie (because he asserts all) even though it correctly describes the speaker as a liar.

In philosophy and logic, the liar paradox, known to the ancients as the pseudomenon, encompasses paradoxical statements such as "This sentence is false." Generally attributed to Epimenides, the original version of the Liar's Paradox was actually devised in the 4th century BC by Greek philosopher Eubulides. Epimenides is rather a fictional speaker in the dialogue in which the Liar's Paradox first makes its appearance. The fictional speaker Epimenides, a Cretan, reportedly stated:

The Cretans are always liars.

The paradox is often considered equivalent or interchangeable with the liar paradox, but they are not the same. The liar paradox is a statement that cannot consistently be true or false, while Epimenides' statement is simply false, as long as there exists at least one Cretan who sometimes tells the truth.

The problem of the liar paradox is that it seems to show that common beliefs about truth and falsity actually lead to a contradiction. Sentences can be constructed that cannot consistently be assigned a truth value even though they are completely in accord with grammar and semantic rules.

Explanation of the paradox and variants

The simplest version of the paradox is the sentence:

This statement is false. (A)
 
If the statement is true, everything asserted in it must be true. However, because the statement asserts that it is itself false, it must be false. So the hypothesis that it is true leads to the contradiction that it is false. Yet the sentence cannot be false for that hypothesis also leads to contradiction. If the statement is false, then what it says about itself is not true. It says that it is false, so that must not be true. Hence, it is true. Under either hypothesis, the statement is both true and false.

However, that the liar sentence can be shown to be true if it is false and false if it is true has led some to conclude that it is neither true nor false. This response to the paradox is, in effect, to reject the common beliefs about truth and falsity: the claim that every statement has to abide by the principle of bivalence, a concept related to the law of the excluded middle. The proposal that the statement is neither true nor false has given rise to the following, strengthened version of the paradox:

This statement is not true. (B)
 
If (B) is neither true nor false, then it must be not true. Since this is what (B) itself states, it means that (B) must be true and so one is led to another paradox.

Another reaction to the paradox of (A) is to posit, as Graham Priest has, that the statement follows paraconsistent logic and is both true and false. Nevertheless, even Priest's analysis is susceptible to the following version of the liar:

This statement is only false. (C)

If (C) is both true and false then it must be true. This means that (C) is only false, since that is what it says, but then it cannot be true, creating another paradox.
Title: Lacan
Post by: d a d a i s t on March 02, 2009, 02:23:53 PM
Using the terms 'metaphor', 'metonymy', and 'synecdoche', we can respectively bring into relief different ASPECTS of the relationship underwriting the 'semantic magic' that characteristically takes place in myth and ritual. The chart below identifies the (psychological) foundation on which each figure of speech relies.

(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4994/63032746fr6.jpg)

Metaphor - x is like y. Using a metaphor, we say, 'Jack's a turkey'. In our mind he's LIKE a turkey. The two are, with respect at least to certain intents and purpose, indistinguishable. So we can substitute 'turkey' for 'Jack', and when asked, 'What's Jack?' we could reply, 'A turkey'.

Metonymy - x is close to y. Using metonymy as a figure of speech, we can say, 'He chases skirts' and mean by that sentence that he chases women. Similarly, George Harrison's old guitar is worth a lot of money. Not merely because it gently weeps, but because he used it and sang about its weeping; it was close to him. It STANDS for him in a way that touches people deeply. If we were to get close to it by owning it, it would be the same as getting close to HIM. We'd feel like we were in his presence. In the same way, the 'Shroud of Turin' is considered sacred because Jesus was presumably wrapped in it, and certain 'mantras' are considered powerful because by repeating them highly enlightened beings have somehow invested them with their power.

Synecdoche - x is part of y. Touching a lock of John Lennon's hair, the tooth of the Buddha, or the bones of a famous saint, is the same as making contact with that individual. Or when one airplane pilot (part) drops a bomb on a bridge in Yugoslavia, we say 'NATO (whole) is bombing the Serbs'.

Metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche can be combined in complex ways, according to Turner, with very interesting results. On top of metonymy (The bird can fly, because it has feathers. So if we take its feathers, we can fly), we superimpose metaphor (Flight is the same as 'transcendence', so possessing the feather will enable us to transcend ourselves). This is how feathers become SYMBOLS of transcendence. But sometimes they are also more than mere symbols. This happens when we believe the object to have become, as a result of this semantic process, somehow literally IMBUED with 'transcendence' - as a result, perhaps, of the 'projection of control' (as Turner would have it) that we exercise, in participating in this myth/ritual, over the mythic/ritual process itself! The feather becomes, as it were, an attribute of a transcending power, and that power can be metonymically assimilated by the acquisition of the attribute.

The 'POETIC FUNCTION', also has 'a profound affinity with synecdoche'. Poetic construction utilizes the same patterns of relationship as does myth and ritual. It has a profound affinity with synecdoche. To paraphrase Jaobson's notion of poetic construction in tropic terms, it consists in a 'play of tropes' similar to that identified in the ethnographic examples: the basic move consists in the transformation of a metonymic combination into a metaphoric equivalence, followed (in more complex poetic or ritual forms such as those discussed) by a further transformation of the metaphoric relation thus established into a metonymic consistuent of a higher-level totality. This use of the same pattern of relations in alternating tropic modes to construct higher levels of coherence or integration is the essence of poetic construction.

As an ethnographic example of 'tropic play', Turner takes the activities of Bororo and Kayapo dancers. When the metaphorical associations of transcendence and form-creating power of the feathered costumes, songs, and movements of the Bororo and Kayapo dancers are ritually employed to effect the transformation and re-creation of social relations, the result is a dynamic synecdoche, in which the ritual acts and costumes become parts of a whole which they create in their own image. The whole is created in the image of its part. God (and/or 'society' - what Teilhard de Chardin used to call the 'noosphere') is created in the human being's image, so that (s)he can fully participate, for the first time, in his/her own divine nature. Without projecting a greater whole, and participating in it, the part would never come to know its 'transcendent' essence.

Transcendence knows itself only through the act of transcending; and only through pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps do we become, paradoxically, who we most fully are. Furthermore, in doing this, we construct 'meaning', and this takes place 'through the shift in perspective accomplished by the metaphoric identification, as metonymically contiguous parts of a more powerfully integrated totality brought into being by ritual action and 'spiritual' power'. Lest we begin to think that this type of activity occurs only in the 'religious' domain, or is exclusively the domain of peoples who are gullible, superstitious, or primitive -- yet, these cultural metaphors of magical transubstantiation have more in common, from both a functional and a structural standpoint, with the metaphorical components of structures of scientific theory analyzed by Bicchieri than with the rhetorical figures of speech and stylistic ornamentations which normally serve as type cases in literary and anthropological discussions of tropes. In both the scientific and the cultural cases ... metaphor and its corollary tropic constructs in the play of tropes serve, not as ornaments for precoded denotative meanings expressed elsewhere by transparent referential constructions, but as the central building blocks in the construction of a meaningful world.


Lacan says: "The subject is spoken rather than speaking." Lacan also accepts Saussure's distinction between the "paradigmatic" and "syntagmatic" functions of language.

(http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5081/drseuss.jpg)
"Paradigmatic" is that VERTICAL feature of language whereby we can replace one term in a sentence with related terms. For example, "HOUSE" can be replaced with "home," "shack," "hut," "tent," "apartment," "place" or "castle." "Syntagmatic" is the HORIZONTAL feature that allows us to transform sequences of words into sentences.

But Lacan expands this, following ideas of the Russian linguist Roman Jakobson transforming the idea of PARADIGM into that of METAPHOR, and the idea of SYNTAGM into that of METONYMY (Metaphor is the replacement of one idea or image with another, or the collapsing of two such images or ideas together. Metonymy is association by contiguity. That is, the whole standing for the part or the part standing for the whole. But also, in Lacan's usage of the term, it is connection by rhyme, sound, or even free association). The effect of this rereading of Saussure is to make the poetic rather than the literal function of language its essential one.

Furthermore, by making metaphor and metonymy the two main poles of language, Lacan can recognize a basic unity between the structure of language and the structure of the unconscious, for Freud had claimed that the two main processes of unconscious thought were CONDENSATION (where for example in dreams a number of wish-laden images are collapsed into one image and are thereby unrecognizable to the dreamer) and DISPLACEMENT (where a wish is deflected from its original forbidden object onto another whose relation to the first is unrecognizable by the subject -- like Freud's example of the woman who burns her lunch on the stove while reading a "Dear Jane" letter from her fiance, and thereafter the smell of burnt food causes a neurotic panic in her). These two processes find their linguistic counterparts in metaphor and metonymy.
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: in_plain_english on March 17, 2009, 04:56:08 PM

QIR, don't you think she acted the way she did towards Diana just to be able to make a little name for herself?


Not really, Nisi. I think she had material gains in the process.


I don't think so, qivero. Imagine her, however, defending Diana's actions (going with Muslim men, etc). Everyone would say she's defending her because every mother loves her children, no matter how bad they are/believed to be.

Now, imagine her scolding Diana. People would feel sorry for her, because her mother -- who's supposed to defend her -- is not. So, in actuality, Diana is better off in front of the public eye when her mother calls her names and says she is a "whore."


dinner, the truth is Di's mother was calling her names to get back to her - it's a well-known fact that Di was openly refering to her mother in inner circles as "that b i t c h" and even in French - "cette putain"!
Title: GUNS -
Post by: e.pauli on March 18, 2009, 02:15:11 PM
It was not clear how long McLendon had been planning the attack, but authorities said he armed himself with four guns - two assault rifles with high-capacity magazines taped together, a shotgun and a .38-calibre pistol - and may have planned a bigger massacre than he had time to carry out.

That's what we hear all the time - "It's not clear how" the shooter got the guns -


SAMSON, Ala. - The gunman who killed 10 people and committed suicide in a rampage across the Alabama countryside had struggled to keep a job and left behind a list of employers and co-workers he believed had wronged him, authorities said Wednesday. The list, found in his home, included a metals plant that had forced Michael McLendon to resign years ago. Also on the list was a sausage factory where he suddenly quit last week and a poultry plant that suspended his mother, District Attorney Gary McAliley said. McAliley was quoted as telling The Dothan Eagle that the list also included people at the sausage factory who had complained about McLendon for such things as not wearing earplugs and slicing the meat too thin. "We found a list of people he worked with, people who had done him wrong," the district attorney said outside the charred house where the rampage began.

But investigators offered no immediate explanation for why he targeted relatives and other people who weren't on the list as he fired more than 200 rounds in a roughly 30-kilometre trail of carnage across two counties near the Florida state line Tuesday. In the span of about an hour, McLendon, 28, set the home he shared with his mother on fire, killed 5 relatives and 5 bystanders and committed suicide in a standoff at the metals plant. "The community's just in disbelief, just how this could happen in our small town," said state Senator Harri Anne Smith, from the nearby town of Slocumb. "This was 20-something miles of terror." It was not clear how long McLendon had been planning the attack, but authorities said he armed himself with four guns - two assault rifles with high-capacity magazines taped together, a shotgun and a .38-calibre pistol - and may have planned a bigger massacre than he had time to carry out.

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6906/alabamashooter250.jpg)
This undated photo obtained Wednesday, March 11, 2009 by the Associated Press shows Michael McLendon, who authorities said killed 10 people in the worst mass shooting in Alabama history.

"I'm convinced he went over there to kill more people. He was heavily armed," said Sheriff Dave Sutton. The shooting was the deadliest attack by a single gunman in Alabama history, and plunged Sansom, the community of about 2,000 where McLendon grew up and where most of his victims lived, into mourning. The town is so close-knit that the mayor coached McLendon in T-ball when he was a boy, and the dead included the wife and daughter of one of the sheriff's deputies who was sent to chase McLendon. As word about the killings spread, graduates of the local high school scrambled to find their yearbooks, and many realized they knew the gunman. "Something had to snap," said Jerry Hysmith, 35, who worked with McLendon at the metals plant in 2001. Among the dead were some of the very people who might have helped explain what set off McLendon - his grandmother, his mother, an uncle and 2 cousins.

This much is clear: McLendon had a hard time keeping a job over the years, and had been forced to resign from his position at a local Reliable Metals plant in 2003, authorities said. Investigators would not say why. That same year, he tried to join the police academy, but lasted only a week before flunking out, authorities said. His next known job came in 2007, at a nearby sausage plant operated by Kelley Foods. The company said he quit last week but was considered a team leader and was well-liked by employees. However, the district attorney said co-workers reported him for not doing things right. McAliley also said McLendon had a list of 8 lawyers, a clue that he might have been planning legal action. The rampage started around 3:30 p.m. at McLendon's mother's home. Authorities said he put her on an L-shaped couch, piled stuff on top of her and set her ablaze. Before he left, he also shot 4 dogs. Investigators did not immediately say whether the woman was dead or alive when the fire was set. Inside the charred home, a gun safe was left with its door ajar, and military gear, including a camouflage jacket and green military-style backpack, was found about the home. In another room, remnants of his baseball career, including a 1995 All-Star trophy, were prominently displayed.

After setting the home ablaze, McLendon drove a dozen miles and gunned down three other relatives and two others on a porch and shot his grandmother at a house next door, sending panicked bystanders fleeing and ducking behind cars. His uncle's wife, Phyllis White, sought refuge in the house of neighbour Archie Mock. "She was just saying, 'I think my family is dead. I think my family is dead,"' Mock said. McLendon went inside the house and chased his aunt out before driving off, said Tom Knowles, who was at his son's house nearby and saw the shooting. Knowles said McLendon returned moments later in his car as if looking for the aunt, then turned and looked at Knowles. "He had cold eyes. There was nothing. I hollered at him. I said, 'Look, boy, I ain't done nothing to you,"' Knowles said. McLendon then left for good. Then, McLendon shot three more people at random as he drove toward the metals plant, firing from his car. One woman was hit as she walked out of a gas station. Another person was hit while driving. One man was shot while walking. At the metals plant, McLendon got out of his car and fired at police with his assault rifle, wounding Geneva police Chief Frankie Lindsey, authorities said. Then he walked inside and killed himself. The victims included the wife and 18-month-old daughter of sheriff's Deputy Josh Myers, who was sent to chase McLendon. Myers did not know at the time that his wife and daughter were among the dead. His 4-month-old daughter was wounded in the attack. "I cried so much yesterday, I don't have a tear left in me," said Myers, who did not know McLendon. "I feel like I should be able to walk in the house and my wife would be there, my baby girl climbing on me."
Title: Liminocentric Structures: Holographic Organization
Post by: egal love on April 25, 2009, 08:06:43 AM
Liminocentric structures also seem sometimes to manifest strange, paradoxical features - such as 'holographic' organization, in which the part appears to 'contain' the whole. By examining the following figures it is easy to see how holographic structure is a natural consequence of liminocentric organization.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1931/81312286.jpg)
The figure depicts a series of nested frames. Frame-B is nested inside of Frame-A, Frame-C is nested within Frame-B, and so forth. But what if we should discover that A and E are identical and indistinguishable?

Suppose, for instance, you walk through the front door of your house and enter the hall. Then you proceed up the stairs to the bedroom. You open the door to the bedroom, walk in, and walk toward the closet. But when you open the door to the closet and step in you find yourself back on the front porch, in front of the front door to your house. This is how one might experience a liminocentrically organized house, if there were such a thing.

If A and E are identical, then the above figure which diagrams a linear nesting order, would be a little bit misleading. The straight vertical dotted line might better be shown to wrap back on itself, in a circle.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5540/70293791.jpg)
It is a little more difficult to re-draw the figure so that the dotted line circles back on itself, but it might look something like this. Frame-A still provides the setting for Frame-B, and so forth, but the figure becomes non-linear. A looped heirarchy of contexts is shown.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/628/65719187.jpg)
If the same non-linear heirarchy is drawn in linear fashion - as an 'approximation' to the truth, let us say - any of the frames could be depicted as the 'bottom-line' frame, depending on how one wanted to punctuate or parse the series. So it makes just as much sense to think of A (depicted as the 'whole' in the first figure) as CONTAINED in E (depicted as the 'part' in the first one) as it does to think of E as contained in A.

This kind of arrangement - the looped series of nested-frames that we are calling a 'liminocentric' structure - has cropped up in various fields, where it has proven itself to be a useful model. The following diagram, for example, was used by Richard Schenchner, a Professor of Performance Studies at NYU, in his book "Between Theatre & Anthopology." He was trying to illustrate the fascinating 'suspension of disbelief' that characteristically takes place in theatre and performance art, in which there is an 'agreement to let the smaller frame AB become the larger frame AB1'. The resulting nested frames thereby assume what we would call a liminocentric arrangement.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5470/74583688.jpg)


Very interesting discussion, Chrysanthi, of the part versus whole thing! In linear-thinking, step-by-step order of processing builds towards solution. In this other thinking, process is inherent in the whole. If each puzzle piece is equally representative of, and equally important to whole, then solution is possible from any point or part thereof. So, for this random thinker, the order of processing is irrelevant, because for every problem solution is inherent and inevitable.

Solving a jigsaw puzzle is a linear mental process. Most start with a few, core filling pieces,
Title: Re: Liminocentric Structures: Holographic Organization
Post by: egalove on April 25, 2009, 08:15:58 AM

Liminocentric structures also seem sometimes to manifest strange, paradoxical features - such as 'holographic' organization, in which the part appears to 'contain' the whole. By examining the following figures it is easy to see how holographic structure is a natural consequence of liminocentric organization.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1931/81312286.jpg)
The figure depicts a series of nested frames. Frame-B is nested inside of Frame-A, Frame-C is nested within Frame-B, and so forth. But what if we should discover that A and E are identical and indistinguishable?

Suppose, for instance, you walk through the front door of your house and enter the hall. Then you proceed up the stairs to the bedroom. You open the door to the bedroom, walk in, and walk toward the closet. But when you open the door to the closet and step in you find yourself back on the front porch, in front of the front door to your house. This is how one might experience a liminocentrically organized house, if there were such a thing.

If A and E are identical, then the above figure which diagrams a linear nesting order, would be a little bit misleading. The straight vertical dotted line might better be shown to wrap back on itself, in a circle.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5540/70293791.jpg)
It is a little more difficult to re-draw the figure so that the dotted line circles back on itself, but it might look something like this. Frame-A still provides the setting for Frame-B, and so forth, but the figure becomes non-linear. A looped heirarchy of contexts is shown.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/628/65719187.jpg)
If the same non-linear heirarchy is drawn in linear fashion - as an 'approximation' to the truth, let us say - any of the frames could be depicted as the 'bottom-line' frame, depending on how one wanted to punctuate or parse the series. So it makes just as much sense to think of A (depicted as the 'whole' in the first figure) as CONTAINED in E (depicted as the 'part' in the first one) as it does to think of E as contained in A.

This kind of arrangement - the looped series of nested-frames that we are calling a 'liminocentric' structure - has cropped up in various fields, where it has proven itself to be a useful model. The following diagram, for example, was used by Richard Schenchner, a Professor of Performance Studies at NYU, in his book "Between Theatre & Anthopology." He was trying to illustrate the fascinating 'suspension of disbelief' that characteristically takes place in theatre and performance art, in which there is an 'agreement to let the smaller frame AB become the larger frame AB1'. The resulting nested frames thereby assume what we would call a liminocentric arrangement.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5470/74583688.jpg)


Very interesting discussion, Chrysanthi, of the part versus whole thing! In linear-thinking, step-by-step order of processing builds towards solution. In this other thinking, process is inherent in the whole. If each puzzle piece is equally representative of, and equally important to whole, then solution is possible from any point or part thereof. So, for this random thinker, the order of processing is irrelevant, because for every problem solution is inherent and inevitable.

Solving a jigsaw puzzle is a linear mental process. Most start with a few, core filling pieces, then hunt, match and build piece-by-piece, from core to completed puzzle, as if already finished, they move the scattered pieces to their proper place; matching location with their completed mental image. Passers-by may not readily discern the pattern of solution or stage of progress, however, closer inspection would reveal that though seemingly unorganized, and though riddled by space or gap, viewed collectively the strewn tabletop bears an uncanny resemblance to the completed puzzle - only lacking in fit'n snap.
Title: Re: Princess Di’s Mom Calls Her Daughter a "Whore"
Post by: Callixena on April 28, 2009, 08:31:19 AM

dinner, the truth is Di's mother was calling her names to get back to her - it's a well-known fact that Di was openly refering to her mother in inner circles as "that b i t c h" and even in French - "cette putain"!


Hahaha - you're funny, in plain!

How do you know that? Were you there?
Title: Nuclear Cassandra: Prophecy in Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook"
Post by: R. Clark on April 30, 2009, 09:32:27 AM

Interesting comment, headphones. It appears that the possibility of using nuclear weapons in war is usually divided into 2 subgroups, each with different effects and potentially fought with different types of nuclear armaments.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5116/nuclear_explosion.jpg)

Some Cold War strategists argued that a limited nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers (such as the United States and the Soviet Union) and if so several predicted that a limited war could "escalate" into an all-out war. Others have called limited nuclear war "global nuclear holocaust in slow motion" arguing that once such a war took place others would be sure to follow over a period of decades, effectively rendering the planet uninhabitable in the same way that a "full-scale nuclear war" between superpowers would, only taking a much longer and more agonizing path to achieve the same result. Even the most optimistic predictions of the effects of a major nuclear exchange foresee the death of billions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a premedieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate, particularly if predictions of nuclear winter are accurate. It is in this latter mode that nuclear warfare is usually alluded to as a doomsday scenario. Such hypothesized civilization-ending nuclear wars have been a staple of the science fiction literature and film genre for decades.

A third category, not usually included with the above two, is accidental nuclear war, in which a nuclear war is triggered unintentionally. Possible scenarios for this have included malfunctioning early warning devices and targeting computers, deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, accidental straying of planes into enemy airspace, reactions to unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and so forth. A number of these scenarios did actually occur during the Cold War, though none resulted in a nuclear exchange. Many such scenarios have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1962 novel "Fail-Safe" and the film "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," also released in 1964.


If you feel certain that society is heading for nuclear war, as Doris Lessing felt in the 1960s, what are you supposed to do with that knowledge? How do you act ethically and responsibly in the face of such a depressing conviction about the future? Or, more radically: to what action might the depression itself call you? Pursuing the social and discursive implications of foreknowledge leads eventually to the question of prophecy -- to the role and responsibility of the prophet. Lessing explores precisely this question in "The Golden Notebook" (1962), a multi-layered, multi-voiced novel in which the lament for a threatened future weaves its way through character, plot, dialogue, and narrative structure. The author was frustrated by the precedence "the sex war" took over political and social issues in reviews of the novel. That she considered the imminence of worldwide nuclear destruction more important than other themes is evidenced by her impatience with the "sexual revolution" in the 1960s:

Quote
"I say we should all go to bed, shut up about sexual liberation, and go on with important matters. We must prevent another major war. We're already in a time of total chaos, but we're so corrupted that we can't see it."

What society cannot see is exactly what the prophet-narrator in Lessing's novel feels compelled to tell. Christa Wolf's novel "Cassandra: A Novel and Four Essays" (1983), although written 20 years later, originally in German, and from the other side of the Cold War divide, serves here as a powerful intertext for my reading of "The Golden Notebook," insofar as Wolf's novelization of the fall of Troy is also inflected with its author's sense of impending nuclear disaster. Wolf explains why she finds the prophet(ess)'s role particularly relevant in the nuclear age: "I try to trace the roots of the contradictions in which our civilization is now entrapped. This is what I was doing in the Cassandra book. That work is very much a product of its time [1984]." Wolf's comments in the essays that accompany the novel in Cassandra, along with her ideas in Accident: The Events of a Day (written in 1986, in response to the Chernobyl reactor meltdown) shed further light on what foreknowledge does to a narrator and her story -- and to an author and her readership.

Prophecy, as I shall define it here, is both a narrative position and a narrative problem, arising in response to the need to reconcile the demands of emotion and action, of knowledge and living with that knowledge. Prophecy is perhaps one of the most courageous responses to the extreme feelings of loss and helplessness that arise under a culture of nuclearism--a culture like Britain as well as the USA during the second half of the 20th century, in which the official discourses of defense, deterrence, and "collateral damage" had begun to inflict their own violence. Put simply, the kinds of losses suffered under nuclearism cannot be properly mourned, commemorated, or "worked through" in Western cultures because the detonation, though perceived as inevitable, has not yet taken place. Instead, the dread of nuclear destruction generates a kind of collective melancholia: it produces proleptic mourning, a future-oriented grief in abeyance or on hold. Julia Kristeva describes melancholia as "impossible mourning" in order to emphasize how the depressed person's sorrow is not sanctioned by or received into the symbolic economy of language. Words, for one facing unmournable loss, thus become devitalized and weak, on the one hand -- unable to contain or express the extremes of desire--and, on the other hand, monstrously virulent in their powers of trivialization, exclusion, and denial. "The speech of the depressed," says Kristeva, "is to them like an alien skin; melancholy persons are foreigners in their maternal tongue."

Prophecy, then, struggles for a way of using language without allowing it to erase, dissimulate, or soften impending loss. In this endeavor it becomes extremely sensitive to the performative uses of language -- those that do things with words rather than merely say things, that enact a reality (for good or bad) rather than merely describe it. The burden of prophecy is similar to what Derrida describes as the responsibility of literary scholars under nuclearism: "We have to re-think the relations between knowing and acting, between constative speech acts and performative speech acts, between the invention that finds what was already there and the one that produces new mechanisms or new spaces." Motivated by her awareness of history as itself performative, Wolf notes that it is a "sense of alarm at finding that reality is not a creation external to us, but a process which we are subject to and yet which we at the same time bring about ourselves, which really prompts me to write." Finding a way to talk about what they know is coming, to speak publicly from a melancholic conviction that would rather enforce silence and withdrawal, is the challenge facing the prophet-narrators of both Wolf's and Lessing's novels.

The Golden Notebook's protagonist, Anna Wulf, is a blocked writer who parses her experience into a series of notebooks in an attempt to impose order on what she perceives as mushrooming internal and societal chaos. The black notebook describes the events in Africa that served as material for the very successful novel she did write; the yellow notebook is a draft of another work entitled The Shadow of the Third; the blue notebook records psychological and emotional aspects of Anna's life; the red notebook pertains to Anna's (estranged) relationship with the Communist Party. But this organizational strategy backfires: Anna becomes more and more fragmented, until she suffers a complete breakdown and the contents of the notebooks bleed into one another. The golden notebook, as the product of this thematic and structural fusion, is correspondingly impressionistic, fluid, and disorienting. The novel suggests both the danger of fragmenting life into categories and the need to acquiesce to a level of fragmentation and chaos, particularly as regards the humanist myth of "self" in an age when de-centered subjectivity is the norm.
Title: Re: Nuclear Cassandra: Prophecy in Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook"
Post by: Walter Ego on May 05, 2009, 06:46:54 PM

[...] Christa Wolf's novel "Cassandra: A Novel and Four Essays" (1983), although written 20 years later, originally in German, and from the other side of the Cold War divide, serves here as a powerful intertext for my reading of "The Golden Notebook," insofar as Wolf's novelization of the fall of Troy is also inflected with its author's sense of impending nuclear disaster. Wolf explains why she finds the prophet(ess)'s role particularly relevant in the nuclear age: "I try to trace the roots of the contradictions in which our civilization is now entrapped. This is what I was doing in the Cassandra book. That work is very much a product of its time [1984]." Wolf's comments in the essays that accompany the novel in Cassandra, along with her ideas in Accident: The Events of a Day (written in 1986, in response to the Chernobyl reactor meltdown) shed further light on what foreknowledge does to a narrator and her story -- and to an author and her readership.

[...]


(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/926/293pxsolomonajaxandcass.jpg)
Ajax and Cassandra by Solomon Joseph Solomon

Actually, the myth of Cassandra is retold by Christa Wolf in Kassandra. She retells the story from the point of view of Cassandra at the moment of her death and uses the myth as an allegory for both the unheard voice of the woman writer and the oppression and strict censorship laws of East Germany.

The Cassandra effect is when a person believes he or she knows the future happening of a catastrophic event, having already seen it in some way, or even experienced it first hand; however, the person knows there is nothing that can be done to stop the event from happening and that nobody will believe it even if he or she tries to tell others. For example, in finance, the more you warn your colleagues about the tail risks — the rare but devastating events that can bring the bank down — the more they roll their eyes, give a yawn and change the subject. This eventually leads to self-censorship.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: contest-the on May 07, 2009, 09:12:24 AM

In "Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag" authors argue that the underlying cost of all society is the violent death of some of its members." In contrast to the view that societal violence is something that occasionally "happens" in spite of our best efforts, the authors argue that violence is INHERENT WITHIN THE VERY NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF "SOCIETY. Many writers speak about the naturally "aggressive" nature of human beings. Marvin and Ingle understand that violence has a deeper source, namely the societal compulsion to SACRIFICE ITS OWN MEMBERS IN THE NAME OF THE SACRED (NATIONAL) IDEAL. It is this SACRIFICAL meaning of violence that human beings refuse to perceive.

The authors state that "OUR DEEPEST SECRET, THE COLLECTIVE GROUP TABOO, IS KNOWLEDGE THAT SOCIETY DEPENDS ON THE DEATH OF SACRIFICIAL VICTIMS AT THE HANDS OF THE GROUP ITSELF." Our capacity to understand the nature of human society requires perceiving this relationship between sacred groups and collective violence. This book represents a significant step toward revealing and articulating this relationship.


This appears to be speculative stuff - here it is another book along the same lines:

(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7480/occulttheocrasylrg.jpg)

The book traces the origin of conspiracy to the start of the human race. It shows that there is a group of satanic priests i.e., occult theocrasy who run the world and gain power by the worship of the devil. The book shows how even criminal syndicates such as the mafia are all part of this conspiracy. It also gives information on how secret societies are all part of this network. The book gives some incredible information. But if the bible is to be taken as the truth, which it is, then we know that the devil rules the world through human agencies.
Title: Re: Nuclear Cassandra: Prophecy in Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook"
Post by: F1A on May 07, 2009, 09:23:04 AM

The Cassandra effect is when a person believes he or she knows the future happening of a catastrophic event, having already seen it in some way, or even experienced it first hand; however, the person knows there is nothing that can be done to stop the event from happening and that nobody will believe it even if he or she tries to tell others. For example, in finance, the more you warn your colleagues about the tail risks — the rare but devastating events that can bring the bank down — the more they roll their eyes, give a yawn and change the subject. This eventually leads to self-censorship.


Could you expand a bit?
Title: Consciousness
Post by: panna on May 12, 2009, 09:08:52 AM

All that need be done in order to conceive of the structure that is modeled as 'liminocentric' is to recognize the nested heirarchy of contexts as arranged in a non-linear fashion - with the beginning of the series wrapping back around on the other end, in a loop. But what does this 'looping back' mean EXPERIENTIALLY? For unless there is some experiential significance in seeing consciousness in this way modeling it as a liminocentric structure could turn out to be just a meaningless abstraction. Experientially, what it means for consciousness to have such a structure is that one winds up in the same place whether one NARROWS the scope of attention to the maximum possible extent (by 'concentrating' awareness) or WIDENS the scope of attention to the maximum possible degree (thereby diffusing awareness). At both extremities one experiences a 'pure', 'undifferentiated', or 'objectless' state of awareness. These two extreme mental states are indentical and indistinguishable, phenomenologically speaking. While IN the objectless state of awareness, there is nothing to distinguish the state arrived at by an extreme concentration of attention from the one arrived at by an extreme expansion of attention.

It may, however, be the case that the same state can be used in different ways, depending upon how one exits or enters it. For instance, there is an undifferentiated state arrived at by a concentration of attention that is called 'samyama' in Patanjali's 'Yoga Sutras'. One enters into this state by concentrating on an object, peeling away its successive conceptual layers. It is as if one is entering into the 'essence' of the object of meditation when the undifferentiated state that this process results in occurs. When one returns from the undifferentiated state, however, it is presumably with paranormal knowledge about the object - according to these sutras. We might describe what happens in such a process by saying that one 'intuits' something about the object by permitting oneself to enter so deeply into it as to experience its 'empty core'.

What about the undifferentiated state arrived at by diffusing attention? When we widen the scope of attention to include progressively larger frames, what happens? If our experience of 'self' arises out of our identification with the frames that remain in the background of awareness as we attend to objects in the foreground then the progressive widening of attention will make the series of nested frames explicit; so as one pulls back or 'zooms out', the larger, more inclusive frames are brought into focus and one 'steps out' of lower-level frames and lower-level self-identifications. The outer limit to this process is to bring 'everything' into attention, with nothing remaining in 'background awareness'. This would be commensurate to a realization of 'egolessness'. In either case - whether we expand or contract attention to its limit, consciousness winds up 'undifferentiated', lacking the bifurcation (into subject and object) that characterizes normal or 'everyday' consciousness.

Accomodating Mystical Knowledge about 'Extreme' States

In the West we tend to think of 'enlightenment' itself as an exceptional mental state, outside of (or separate from) ordinary states. But in many of the spiritual traditions of the East, enlightenment is described as, in essence, a 'realization' about the ultimate nature of the mind. Enlightenment is really nothing but the 'ordinary' state, as seen (and experienced) from a somewhat wider perspective, as it were. This is not unlike how the Newtonian frame which describes events in the material world at a HUMAN scale can be conceived as enclosed within a wider frame of explanation that is Einsteinian. Perhaps we can explain this by using a second visual metaphor, as follows.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1439/45903462.jpg)
donut w/hole in space

The torus is a donut-shaped topological surface. It is, roughly speaking, a three dimensional spherical shape, with a hole in the middle. Drawn on a two-dimensional surface, we'd get something like the figure to the left. The brown area is the donut itself. It is probably a chocolate donut. It is contained in a 'space' which turns out to be continuous with the 'hole' that occupies its center.

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1567/26854595.jpg)
donut in space, seen from distance

But if we step back far enough from the donut we see only what looks like a solid object (as content) in the midst of an empty space (which appears as background). The hole at the center of the donut is too small to see, and goes unnoticed.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3037/47754367.jpg)
donut in space, seen from extreme distance

If we zoom back even further - extremely far - the donut itself becomes too small to see. There seems to be only empty space left. There is no background, no foreground, just one homogenous field.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6813/62598704.jpg)
closeup of donut w/hole

Or if we move, in the other direction, toward the torus and focus on it from a very close distance, we will see the hole in the donut (as the object of our attention) against the mass of the donut (which fills the background of our perceptual field). We are too close to the object to be able to see the space that surrounds it.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4086/58985927.png)
closeup of the hole

And if we get EXTREMELY close, entering into the hole in the donut, all we see is the space within the hole. The donut itself seems to 'disappear'. This space is indistinguishable from the space that is arrived at by backing far away from the donut.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4825/80258878.png)

But if we find the midpoint between these two extremes of distance, we see not only the mass of the donut - but also the hole in the middle, AND the space surrounding the donut. And we are in a good position to realize that the surrounding (outermost) space is in fact continuous with the enclosed (innermost) space. The two 'spaces' are indeed the same.

In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous. By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.

This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. But liminocentric organization not only provides a structure that explains why consciousness is inextricably paradoxical, and accounts for our sense of irony and mystery, it also permit us to appeal to logic (the 'law of the excluded middle') within certain limited and specifiable boundaries. Such a structure thus reconciles 'incompatibles' (logic and paradox, in this case) by conceiving of the system as odd or unusual (ie, 'paradoxical') ONLY at its extremes.


Imagine the Perfect Duplicating Machine: it takes any physical object (not too large), and constructs a copy of it. The copy is exactly identical to the original — atom for atom. (To formally remain consistent with the conservation of energy, we rule that an equal quantity of any kind of matter must be destroyed during the replication process.) How useful such a machine would be! We could use it to transmute lead into gold or diamonds or whatever. By repeatedly copying something eatable we could be assured never to run out of food. Everyone could easily obtain an authentic painting by Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci - with Leonardo's fingerprints still on it! Computers could be copied just as easily as computer software. The possibilities are endless. Of course the value of things would change completely. Being "the authentic thing" would become meaningless. Material wealth would be measured in kilograms and in nothing else (since kilograms of this are easily transformed to kilograms of that).
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: panna on May 12, 2009, 09:13:58 AM
Free Hardware

Let us pause for a minute to ponder on the relevance of the matter duplicator on the issue of intellectual property. In effect, all objects material would become essentially like software is now to us. The only material factor (and a relatively unimportant one) is mass, in analogy with size in the case of software. Beyond that, once the object exists, it can be copied ad libitum. Would we see the appearance of copyrights on objects? That is to be feared: iisdem causis iidem effectus. So we might have the situation in which "you are starving but I can't give you a copy of my hamburger because it's copyrighted."

Copying humans

Sooner or later someone would end up using the matter duplicator on himself. What would happen then is not difficult to predict. The copied human being would have the same memories as his twin — up to the point when the copy was performed. The copy would insist that he is the original, and that he was suddenly teleported from one place to the other. The mere thought that somebody can share all your memories, have exactly your character, is frightening. Presumably the two twins would not get along very well: we are too used to our own individuality to tolerate sharing it with someone else — moreover, it tends to be the case that the faults we dislike the most are those which we ourselves possess. (One may object that this is not the case for biological identical twins — but those have the time to grow accustomed to the fact that they share many things with their sibling.) The debate over authenticity would be dreadful of course — all the more dreadful as it cannot be settled. Each copy is fully convinced that he was the Genuine Thing. If we are careful we might distinguish the original from the copy at the start. But if they are mixed up initially there is no telling which is which.

Consciousness split

But these Gedankenexperminenten are nothing compared to the even more terrible idea of performing the experiment on oneself. If I sit on the stool of the duplicator machine and somebody presses the button, who am I after the copy? On the one hand I can argue that I am still the same person. After all, nothing special has happened to me. I have just been analyzed. A bunch of molecules have been reshaped a few feet from me — something I shouldn't care about (except only that this bunch of molecules is going to argue the hell out of me in a few minutes). I am still the same. Or am I?

On the other hand, since there is nothing to distinguish the original from the copy, we can argue that I am the copy. In fact, if the copy will be fully convinced of that. (And, if the copy was not me, who was it?) Has my consciousness split? Does that make any sense? (Some people would argue that I will be both copies at once, in the sense that "I" will control them, i.e. the two bodies. This is patently absurd. The twins will not have any extrasensory perception skills just because they were one same individual some time back. True, they will know each other pretty damn well. But tell one twin a number and ask the other which it was, he can't answer that.)

The Duplicator as a teleporting device

Now suppose the device is as follows: it does not copy but displaces. This is a very nice way for crossing interstellar distances. The actual material particles don't need to move, only the information needs to travel, and it can do that faster than light if we believe in magic. Now a good way of moving is to copy and destroy the original. At the same time. This is a mere transportation so there is nothing to fear. You enter the cabin, and your molecules are disintegrated while they are simultaneously "reintegrated" somewhere else.

Or is there really nothing to fear? To an external observer, nothing unusual has happened. I stepped into the teleportor's cabin in one place and I stepped out of it in another. If you ask me how I feel I will not find anything special. One moment I was here and one moment I was there. By a troubling coincidence this is precisely what the copy feels in the case of the duplicator. Now what if the machine breaks? If it fails to create the remote copy, of course, the traveler dies, and that's "all" there is to it. But what if it fails to destroy the local copy. Then it has acted like a duplicator. And in that case how would the local copy react upon being told: "Excuse-me sir, but we had a slight malfunction with the machine. However, I am happy to say that your true self has arrived safely on Andromeda. Now if you allow us, we will terminate you." (This thought is taken from "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose.)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: panna on May 12, 2009, 09:20:02 AM
Threads of consciousness

In the case of the duplication of consciousness, is it ethical to destroy one or the other copy created (as to make a teleporting device)? On the one hand, clearly no: both copies are just as human as the original, and they would react in the same horrified fashion if told that they are to be "terminated." Let us however, for one moment, pursue a different (and crazier) line of thought. That of computer threads, or, better, threads of possibilities in nondeterministic computing. A nondeterministic computer functions just as an ordinary computer, but with one special instruction: the fork primitive. Forking divides the program in as many threads as desired (presumably only finitely many) in which a certain variable has a given value. Each thread continues independently of the others; it is allowed to fork again. Forking into zero threads means dying. If a result is read ("observed" in the quantum-mechanical sense) by the user, it is read from only one random (living) thread and all other threads cease to exist.

If we imagine consciousness split as in the model of nondeterministic computing, there is nothing wrong with killing one of the copies as long as at least one remains alive. That is, if I duplicate myself and somebody kills one of the copies then I retroactively become the other copy. Or, to state this differently, if I duplicate myself then I am the copy which will live the longer. I am predestined to be so. This crazy idea can be pursued even further to yield even stranger thoughts...

Death

The experiment of the consciousness split cannot be performed. One experience that is performed all the time, however (but never twice by the same person) is that of consciousness vanishing. Also known as death. Death is neither more nor less incomprehensible as the idea of duplicating oneself. That is, it is "externally" perfectly comprehensible: there is nothing magic or mysterious about it happening to others. However, it is "internally" perfectly incomprehensible: we cannot see it happening to ourselves.

Is consciousness experimental?

In view of the above comment, we have a serious epistemological problem if we are to experiment with consciousness. We can not be sure of anyone's consciousness but our own. The strict laws of scientific method require that the experimenter never be part of the experiment itself. And yet in the case of consciousness he must be. Or are we to conclude that consciousness is a fraud?

Is consciousness material?

Some people will want to get around the problems presented by concluding that consciousness is not something material and that consequently the matter duplicator cannot duplicate it. There are some serious objections to this also. In the first place, what does "immaterial" mean? Even if consciousness is some very special addendum to the laws of physics, this does not mean that it cannot be copied also, by some other means. (For example, it quite clearly can be destroyed.) But let us leave this aside and assume that consciousness cannot be copied, that this is meaningless. But then what happens when we use the matter duplicator anyway on a human being? We get a soulless human. Now what is a soulless human being? And, more importantly, can we distinguish a soulless human being from a normal one?

Will the soulless human drop dead? This is absurd: there is no medical reason for him to do so. His brain is perfectly normal since it is the identical copy of the original brain. Will the soulless human react exactly as had been predicted? In this case, it can only be argued that consciousness is not something experimentally detectable and therefore that epistemology demands that we think no longer of it. More importantly, will the soulless human realize that he is soulless? Will he himself feel the lack of this magic fluid of consciousness? Perhaps, also, does consciousness have some relation with physics in the question of the reduction of the wave packet.

Is consciousness a magic fluid?

If we assume that consciousness is something magical ("the soul") that it is outside the scope of the laws of physics we have a strange problem. Because that magic fluid is still inextricably tied with the human brain. It is known that our character resides in our brain. Our memories reside in our brain. Our thoughts reside in our brain. Our intelligence resides in our brain. Making consciousness something magical and outside the brain is absurd — or rather, that idea must be dropped by Occam's razor. Moreover, what happens when our brain is destroyed, when we die? Is the magic fluid of our consciousness spilled? Does it find another body? Does it join the collective consciousness of the Universe? Must we really go in this sort of mysticism?

Metempsychosis

The Hindu religion tells us that at our death our soul finds another body in which to reincarnate itself. The thought of reincarnation is very strange, though. What is supposed to be common between ourselves and our past lives? Certainly not our memories. Our intelligence? Our character? Our thoughts? None of that, it would appear. Only this strange magic fluid of consciousness. But then what does it mean? I can recognize someone's memories, possibly his character, perhaps even his intelligence. But what about his soul? How can I recognize the continuity? Once again, we are faced with inextricable epistemological difficulties. My statement is that metempsychosis is not even false, it is meaningless. But then, of course, perhaps consciousness itself is meaningless.

The continuity of consciousness

We have the feeling that we are today the same person as yesterday we were and tomorrow we shall be. Only what does it mean to be the same person? When we go to sleep, for example, our consciousness is "switched off" for a certain amount of time. How do we know it is "the same" when we wake up again — and how do we define this, for that matter? In other words, how do we distinguish this jump in time which characterizes sleep from the jump in space of teleportation, which we have seen causes a lot of problems in the definition of consciousness. As Marvin Minsky points out (in "The Society of Mind," section 5.7), we are very good to our future self: we often sacrifice the pleasure of our "present self" to effect the safety and happiness of our "future self." From a strictly Darwinian point of view, this is understandable. But from a psychological point of view, this is slightly surprising. Am I so certain that this future self is indeed me?

Is consciousness a fraud?

We are pretty convinced of the reality of our own consciousness. But, after all, we only have our own word for it. Epistemologically speaking, this is not enough. (In fact, I actually have no evidence for the existence of any other consciousness than my own.) So, is consciousness a fraud? It could be a pure epiphenomenon, systematically appearing in any sufficiently complex intelligent system. Or it could have some evolutionary reason to it: we need the continuity feeling that consciousness procures us in order to justify before our intelligence the fact that we act favorably towards our own future self. Epistemologically this answer is rather satisfactory. Ethically it is horrible, however.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: panna on May 12, 2009, 09:25:27 AM
Solipsism

How do I have the proof that anybody but myself has a consciousness? I can feel mine (and even this is not really enough), but I only have your word as to the existence of your consciousness. This solipsist interpretation of the world is quite convenient sometimes. Notably in some quantum-mechanical representations of consciousness. At this point we might as well believe in magic.

Is consciousness quantum?

Quantum mechanics predicts that an experiment having several possible outcomes will put the world in a hybrid state consisting of a linear superposition of these various outcomes similar to the threads of nondeterministic computing. When an observation is performed, there takes place a very mysterious phenomenon known as the collapse of the wave function, where all possibilities but one "disappear." This is excellent from the practical point of view, but nobody knows how or when this "observation" takes place. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is the conscious act of observing the result (and not the experiment itself) which forces the collapse. So, is the collapse of the wave function essential to consciousness just as consciousness might be essential to the collapse of the wave function? Are our brains essentially quantum?

Magic and quantum magic

If I believe in the quantum vision of consciousness, in the solipsist variation, I might as well believe in magic. Indeed, if the very root of my consciousness is my ability to collapse wave functions within my brain, why not be able to collapse them elsewhere — in other words, among a world of possibilities, choose the ones I like best. Similarly, I can believe I am immortal, because I will always choose (even without realizing it) the branch of time in which I am alive. Now I had better stop before I reach the state of megalomania where I start proclaiming that I am God, and somebody shoots me to prove me that I am wrong.

Processes and consciousness

The human brain is the most fantastic multitasking computer one could ever dream of. Curiously enough, we are essentially able to think of "one thing at a time" — or at least we think so. In fact, this is false. Our brain is perpetually engaged in hundreds of parallel activities, each involving a relatively well-defined group of neurons. Some are purely "mechanical" actions, while others are true thoughts. Yet of these many processes only one is "conscious" while the others are "subconscious." This is strange as processes keep forking and dying within this turmoil of thoughts. In fact the Gedankenexperiment of consciousness split through the matter duplicator happens all the time within our brain (another meaning of "Gedanken" :-)

What we call consciousness is merely the dominant process within our brain. It is constantly changing (hence the consciousness glitches we experience when suddenly asking ourselves "now, what was I thinking about?"). In fact, it is not even well defined or unique: two processes can compete for brain domination — as when we hesitate about something, two groups of neurons fighting each other and trying to grasp control. It can also be that for some time there is no really active process: in that case we are "absent," "away," "distracted." Despite all this, we have the firm belief that consciousness is One and Unique, that we remain our same true self. This illusion of continuity is perhaps a result of the historical evolution of our brains.

Who is conscious?

Our firm (and perhaps built-in) belief of the Oneness of consciousness is in difficulty when confronted with certain borderline cases. We think that consciousness is an all-or-nothing phenomenon because that is how we experiment it (and also because we cannot think it magic otherwise). But is it so? The problem with the all-or-nothing rule for consciousness is that we then have to fix a specific point for its appearance in phylogenetic and ontogenetic history. Or, in other words: are apes (and notably Bonobo chimpanzees, seemingly the most intelligent monkeys) or dolphins conscious? Are fetus conscious? Giving an answer to these questions without appealing to religious dogmata is far from being obvious.

The other kind of borderline cases is the "virtual words" problem. I wish to ask the following question seriously: are the characters within our dreams conscious? Are characters within novels conscious? In a way these correspond to processes within our brain, so they are not qualitatively different from our own consciousness. For that matter, when are we conscious? Are we still conscious when we sleep? When we dream? When we are very tired? (I notice that being really tired does not truly affect my intelligence, but it does affect my consciousness, whatever that means.) How about human beings with various mind disorders? Can those impair consciousness? Also in the "virtual words" line comes the following question. Suppose we had a really powerful computer, powerful enough to compute the behavior of entire moles of atoms, and we used this computer to simulate an entire human being within a completely virtual world. This virtual human being would behave just as we would in the same circumstances. If we simulate ourself, we have just performed the self-duplication experiment within a virtual world. So, is he conscious? Or is the reality of the physical world necessary for consciousness? For that matter, we can get rid of the simulation altogether and ask whether machines can be conscious — a question which we can only satisfactorily answer in the negative if we believe in some kind of "magic fluid" nature of consciousness. (Those who have read "La invención de Morel" by Adolfo Bioy Casares can also ask themselves whether Morel and the others are conscious, and whether the hero is going to lose his own consciousness.)

Finally, what about larger scale entities? Is an ant-hill conscious (note that it is intelligent — or at any rate certainly more intelligent than the individual ant)? Is humanity as a whole conscious (without our being aware of it — in much the same way that our brain cells are unaware of our own consciousness)? Any theory of consciousness would have to answer those troublesome questions. Of course the simplest possible (but lazy) answer is that these questions are without object because consciousness does not exist.

Conscious machines?

So much for apes and dolphins. Now can a machine ever be conscious (as opposed to intelligent)? If we do not want to argue about an kind of magical, ethereal nature of consciousness, or an essential quantum effect in its existence, we are forced to answer: yes, at least in theory. Is it a crime to turn off a computer which is running a conscious program? Is it still a crime if we keep a full dump of memory so that the program can be restored later on? Or is it just like when we go to sleep? And then, is it a crime to destroy the tape? And what happens if we copy the tape and run the program again, simultaneously on two different computers? Do we have a consciousness split? What if we make a backup, then let the program run for a while, then kill it, and start again from the backup? Is that a crime? And if we just let it run for a few milliseconds before we kill and restart?

Intelligence

After having explored the murky mysteries of consciousness and of the soul, we turn to the dazzling light of intelligence. Intelligence is not very much more easy to define than consciousness. But at least it can be observed experimentally, which consciousness cannot. We are, it would seem, the most intelligent beings on Earth. We are also the only ones of whose consciousness we are certain. So is there some correlation between intelligence and consciousness? Is one necessary to the other? Or, perhaps, is consciousness a necessary epiphenomenon springing from the thought processes of any sufficiently intelligent entity?
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: E. Mazurski on July 01, 2009, 11:41:19 AM

There was this French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, who said that power is dead, dissolved, canceled and made hyperreal through simulations, models, codes. In the new Postmodern universe of mediablitz, we no longer have power per se -- but something like a simulation of power. For instance, Ronald Reagan ruled like a king merely by posing -- by offering signs of power in photo ops and sound bites -- rather than by exercising power.


In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.
Title: Re: Liminocentric Structures: Holographic Organization
Post by: Dolce Nonna on July 02, 2009, 10:34:48 AM

Very interesting discussion, Chrysanthi, of the part versus whole thing! In linear-thinking, step-by-step order of processing builds towards solution. In this other thinking, process is inherent in the whole. If each puzzle piece is equally representative of, and equally important to whole, then solution is possible from any point or part thereof. So, for this random thinker, the order of processing is irrelevant, because for every problem solution is inherent and inevitable.

Solving a jigsaw puzzle is a linear mental process. Most start with a few, core filling pieces, then hunt, match and build piece-by-piece, from core to completed puzzle, as if already finished, they move the scattered pieces to their proper place; matching location with their completed mental image. Passers-by may not readily discern the pattern of solution or stage of progress, however, closer inspection would reveal that though seemingly unorganized, and though riddled by space or gap, viewed collectively the strewn tabletop bears an uncanny resemblance to the completed puzzle - only lacking in fit'n snap.


Could you tell us more on this sorta thing?
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: HiBix on July 03, 2009, 08:43:31 AM

There was this French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, who said that power is dead, dissolved, canceled and made hyperreal through simulations, models, codes. In the new Postmodern universe of mediablitz, we no longer have power per se -- but something like a simulation of power. For instance, Ronald Reagan ruled like a king merely by posing -- by offering signs of power in photo ops and sound bites -- rather than by exercising power.


In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.


Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, nonserious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.
Title: The Wild Dog Howls
Post by: Opera on July 04, 2009, 09:31:35 AM

Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, nonserious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.


A story is told of Diogenes, probably the best known of the ancient greek cynics: It is said that one day, as he was sunning himself in the bathtub he called home, Alexander the "great" came to speak with him. This emperor of many nations said, " I am Alexander, prince of Macedonia and the world. I have heard you are a great philosopher. Do you have any words of wisdom for me?" Annoyed at such a petty disturbance of his calm, Diogenes answered, "Yes, you're standing in my sun. Get out of the way." Though this story is most likely fictional, it reflects the scorn in which cynics held all authority and their boldness in expressing this scorn. These self-proclaimed "dogs" (wild dogs, of course) rejected heirarchy, social restraints and the alleged need for laws and greeted these with sarcastic mockery.

How utterly different this ancient cynicism was from what now goes by that name. Several years ago, a radical group in England called the Pleasure Tendency published a pamphlett entitiled "Theses Against Cynicism". In this pamphlett, they criticsize an attitude of hip detatchment, of shallow, sarcastic despair - and particularly the penetration of this attitude into anti-authoritarian and revolutionary circles. The proponents of this present-day "cynicism" are everywhere. The hip, sarcastic comedy of Saturday Night Live or the Comedy Channel presents no real challenge to the ruling powers. In fact, this smirking know-it-all-ism is the yuppie attitude par excellence. It has nothing to do with a real understanding of what's going on, but is rather a justification for conformity. "Yes, we know what the politicians and corporate executives are up to. We know it's all a dirty game. But there's nothing we can do about it, so we're gonna get our piece of the action". There's nothing we can do about it - that is the memessage of this modern cnicism -- not disdain for authority, but disdain for those who still dare to challenge it rather than joining in its game with a knowing smirk.

This attitude has entered the circles of so-called revolutionaries and anarchists through the back-door of post-modern philosophy in which ironic hyper-conformity is presented as a viable revolutionary strategy. With a straight face (or just the trace of a smirk), the most radical of the post-modern philosophers tell us that we need only push the logic of capitalism to its own "schizophrenic" extreme and it will break down on its own. For these present-day "radical" cynics, attempts to attack and destroy this society are foolish and ineffective, and atempts to create one's own life in oppostion to this society is attatchment to an out-dated individualism. Of course, these mostly French philosphers are rarely read. Like mainstream "cynicism", post-modern "cynicism" needs it hip popularizers -- and they certainly have appeared. Sarcastically tearing down every significant insurgent idea or activity of the past century while promoting pathetic liberal eclecticism and ridiculous art or mystical movements as "revolutionary" or "iconoclastic", these alternative yuppies -- who often claim to reject individuality -- mainly just to promote themselves and their own pathetic projects.

Perhaps the wost effect of the post-modern penetration into anaarchist circles is its reinforcement of a tendency to reject theory. Any attempts to understand society in its totality in order to fight it more effectively are either called dogmatic or are seen as proof that those who make such attempts are hopelessly naive with no understanding of the complexity of "post-modern" post-industrial society. Of course, the "understanding" these oh-so-wise(-ass) anti-theorists have is smply their faith in the impossibility of analysis, a faith which allows them to continue their ritual of piecemeal activism which has long since proven ineffective for anything other than occasionally pushing the social system into making changes necessary for its own continued reproduction. Those who continue to make insurgent theory are accused by the self-proclaimed activists of sitting in ivory towers, regardless of how much this insurgence is put into practise.

When one considers the original Greek cycnics, one is averse to using the same term for their modern namesakes. Yet the present-day "cynics" are much more like the dogs we are familiar with -- pathetic, dependant, domesticated pets. Like well-trained puppies, they rarely make it past the front yard gate before they run back cowering to the safety of their master's house; then they learn to bark and snarl at the wild dogs who dare to live outside the fence and, in exchange for a milkbone, lick the hands that keep them on the leash. I would rather be among the wild dogs howling out my scorn for every master, prepared to bite any hand that tries to tame. I reject the sarcastic despair that passes as cynicism today, in order to grasp as a weapon the untamed cynicism which dares to tell authority, "You're standing in my sun. Get out of the way!"
Title: NEGATIONS
Post by: Google in English on July 04, 2009, 10:13:48 AM

A story is told of Diogenes, probably the best known of the ancient greek cynics: It is said that one day, as he was sunning himself in the bathtub he called home, Alexander the "great" came to speak with him. This emperor of many nations said, " I am Alexander, prince of Macedonia and the world. I have heard you are a great philosopher. Do you have any words of wisdom for me?" Annoyed at such a petty disturbance of his calm, Diogenes answered, "Yes, you're standing in my sun. Get out of the way." Though this story is most likely fictional, it reflects the scorn in which cynics held all authority and their boldness in expressing this scorn. These self-proclaimed "dogs" (wild dogs, of course) rejected heirarchy, social restraints and the alleged need for laws and greeted these with sarcastic mockery.

How utterly different this ancient cynicism was from what now goes by that name. Several years ago, a radical group in England called the Pleasure Tendency published a pamphlett entitiled "Theses Against Cynicism". In this pamphlett, they criticsize an attitude of hip detatchment, of shallow, sarcastic despair - and particularly the penetration of this attitude into anti-authoritarian and revolutionary circles. The proponents of this present-day "cynicism" are everywhere. The hip, sarcastic comedy of Saturday Night Live or the Comedy Channel presents no real challenge to the ruling powers. In fact, this smirking know-it-all-ism is the yuppie attitude par excellence. It has nothing to do with a real understanding of what's going on, but is rather a justification for conformity. "Yes, we know what the politicians and corporate executives are up to. We know it's all a dirty game. But there's nothing we can do about it, so we're gonna get our piece of the action". There's nothing we can do about it - that is the memessage of this modern cnicism -- not disdain for authority, but disdain for those who still dare to challenge it rather than joining in its game with a knowing smirk.

This attitude has entered the circles of so-called revolutionaries and anarchists through the back-door of post-modern philosophy in which ironic hyper-conformity is presented as a viable revolutionary strategy. With a straight face (or just the trace of a smirk), the most radical of the post-modern philosophers tell us that we need only push the logic of capitalism to its own "schizophrenic" extreme and it will break down on its own. For these present-day "radical" cynics, attempts to attack and destroy this society are foolish and ineffective, and atempts to create one's own life in oppostion to this society is attatchment to an out-dated individualism. Of course, these mostly French philosphers are rarely read. Like mainstream "cynicism", post-modern "cynicism" needs it hip popularizers -- and they certainly have appeared. Sarcastically tearing down every significant insurgent idea or activity of the past century while promoting pathetic liberal eclecticism and ridiculous art or mystical movements as "revolutionary" or "iconoclastic", these alternative yuppies -- who often claim to reject individuality -- mainly just to promote themselves and their own pathetic projects.

Perhaps the wost effect of the post-modern penetration into anaarchist circles is its reinforcement of a tendency to reject theory. Any attempts to understand society in its totality in order to fight it more effectively are either called dogmatic or are seen as proof that those who make such attempts are hopelessly naive with no understanding of the complexity of "post-modern" post-industrial society. Of course, the "understanding" these oh-so-wise(-ass) anti-theorists have is smply their faith in the impossibility of analysis, a faith which allows them to continue their ritual of piecemeal activism which has long since proven ineffective for anything other than occasionally pushing the social system into making changes necessary for its own continued reproduction. Those who continue to make insurgent theory are accused by the self-proclaimed activists of sitting in ivory towers, regardless of how much this insurgence is put into practise.

When one considers the original Greek cycnics, one is averse to using the same term for their modern namesakes. Yet the present-day "cynics" are much more like the dogs we are familiar with -- pathetic, dependant, domesticated pets. Like well-trained puppies, they rarely make it past the front yard gate before they run back cowering to the safety of their master's house; then they learn to bark and snarl at the wild dogs who dare to live outside the fence and, in exchange for a milkbone, lick the hands that keep them on the leash. I would rather be among the wild dogs howling out my scorn for every master, prepared to bite any hand that tries to tame. I reject the sarcastic despair that passes as cynicism today, in order to grasp as a weapon the untamed cynicism which dares to tell authority, "You're standing in my sun. Get out of the way!"


We focus our attention on Fredric Jameson, entitled, "Postmodernism and Consumer Society" (1983). The second is Deleuze/Guattari's controversial Anti-Oedipus (1983). Jameson's essay and Anti-Oedipus present two distinct perspectives on how subjects form identities within late capitalism. Although very different, both texts approach identification through an analysis of schizophrenia and capitalism.

Jameson associates postmodern aesthetic and cultural movements with the psychoanalytic category of schizophrenia. Borrowing from Lacan, he defines schizophrenia as "the failure of the infant to accede fully into the realm of speech and language." The schizoid neonate fails to fully acquire language, and as a result cannot individuate, because the infant must enter into a social/linguistic field to develop an ego. Jameson says that schizophrenic experience is an experience of isolated, disconnected, discontinuous material signifiers which fail to link up into a coherent sequence. The schizophrenic thus does not know personal identity in our sense, since our feeling of identity depends on our sense of the persistence of the "I" and the "me" over time. According to Jameson, the schizophrenic lacks a personal identity, is unable to differentiate between self and world, and is incapable of experiencing continuity through time.
There are several reasons why Jameson associates these attributes of schizophrenia with postmodernism and late capitalism. In many respects the media culture of the late twentieth century simulates schizoid experience. The rapid fire succession of signifiers in MTV style media erodes the viewers sense of temporal continuity. To use the same words that Jameson uses to describe schizophrenic experiences, the images that flash across the MTV viewers' retina are "isolated, disconnected, discontinuous material signifiers which fail to link up into a coherent sequence." This postmodern montage can have the effect of disorienting the subject, and may contribute to the egolessness that is characteristic of schizophrenia.

Jameson is concerned that the emerging postmodern art forms will lack the subversive, critical function that modernist art served. "[M]odernism was oppositional art," asserts Jameson. It "did not go well with overstuffed Victorian furniture, with Victorian moral taboos, or with the conventions of polite society." As modernism lost its subversive nature and became canonized (i.e. Picasso, Elliot, Sartre, etc.) it is unclear weather postmodernism filled in as a radical social/political movement. By destroying the distinction between high and low art, postmodern culture was able to integrate itself into the capitalist mass culture. MTV can serve as our example once again. For all its sexual explicitness, MTV fails to shock, and contributes to capitalist culture more than it threatens it. Thus, Jameson concludes that "postmodernism is closely related to... late capitalism." Where modernism often attacked the bourgeois society from which it emerged, postmodernism "replicates... reproduces... [and] reinforces... the logic of consumer capitalism." Jameson leaves open the possibility that "there is also a way in which [postmodernism]... resists" the logic of capitalism. Nevertheless, he reveals his Marxist background and modernist leanings through his skepticism toward the political potential of postmodernism.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Google_in_English on July 04, 2009, 10:28:23 AM
Jameson links schizophrenia to postmodernism, and postmodernism to consumer capitalism. He is saying, in effect, that contemporary capitalism has extended the symptoms of schizophrenia to the masses in the form of postmodern culture. His formulation sees both postmodernism and schizophrenia as cultural forces that scramble and confuse. The schizophrenic confusion destroys the possibility of critical perspectives, such as those found in modernist traditions. In a fragmented cultural milieu, capitalist, consumer culture can thrive unopposed. When Jameson diagnoses our culture as schizophrenic, he is telling us that our culture is not fully human. A schizophrenic culture fails "to accede fully into the realm of speech and language." Like the schizophrenic, such a culture is rootless, separated from history, and outside of "human time."

Like Jameson, Deleuze and Guattari see correspondences between capitalism and schizophrenia, although they conceptualize the relationship quite differently. This difference stems in part from the philosophies of the authors. Where Jameson is a Marxist with modernist sympathies, Deleuze and Guattari could be classified as postmodernist, or poststructuralist. Jameson would certainly consider these author's work to be part of (schizophrenic) postmodern cultural production. Furthermore, Jameson is a modernist intellectual who studies postmodernism while Deleuze and Guattari can be described as postmodernist theorists. Thus, when Deleuze and Guattari discuss the relationship between schizophrenia and capitalism, a post-modern sensibility is always lurking in the background. Deleuze and Guattari react strongly against the Freudian and Lacanian treatment of schizophrenia. It is the schizoid's ability to scramble and decode that Deleuze and Guattari associate with contemporary capitalism. Like the schizophrenic, capitalism can insert itself anywhere and everywhere as a decoder and scrambler. Although, our capitalist societies exhibit a marked taste for all codes ­­ codes foreign and exotic ... this taste is destructive and morbid. While decoding doubtless means understanding and translating a code, it also means destroying the code as such, assigning it an archaic, folkloric, or residual function.

Mobile, flexible capital is capable of inserting itself into any cultural milieu. In countries as different as Japan, Brazil, France, and Kenya, capitalism is able to take advantage of the local symbolic order. The forms that capitalism takes in these various countries reflect the symbolic order that the capitalist machine has plugged into. Thus, Deleuze and Guattari do not characterize the capitalist machine as monolithic or unitary ­­ it does not have an "I", an ego, or a unified identity. It works instead as a polymorphous destroyer of codes. It continually breaks down the cultural, symbolic, and linguistic barriers that create territories and limit exchange. Thus, Deleuze and Guattari assert that "[c]ivilization is defined by the decoding and deterritorialization of flows in capitalist production." It would seem that Deleuze and Guattari are making a move similar to Jameson's by asserting that schizophrenia resembles and is associated with the logic of late capitalism.

"Yet it would be a serious error," assert Deleuze and Guattari, "to consider the capitalist flows and the schizophrenic flows as identical, under the general theme of... decoding." Capitalism "produces schizos the same way it produces Prell shampoo or Ford cars" but the schizos are not salable. Indeed, the schizophrenic is locked up in institutions, and turned into a "confined clinical entity." If the schizophrenic really exemplified the culture of capitalism, why aren't schizos celebrated as heroes and heroines in contemporary capitalist society? Deleuze and Guattari conclude that schizophrenia is the exterior limit of capitalism itself or the conclusion of its deepest tendency, but that capitalism only functions on condition that it inhibit this tendency, or that it push back or displace this limit... Hence schizophrenia is not the identity of capitalism, but on the contrary its difference, its divergence, and its death. As capitalism decodes and deterritorializes it reaches a limit at which point it must artificially reterritorialize by augmenting the state apparatus, and repressive bureaucratic and symbolic regimes. The schizophrenic never reaches such a limit. S/he resists such reterritorialization, just as s/he resists the symbolic and despotic territorialization of the oedipalizing psychotherapist.

Thus, Deleuze and Guattari disagree with Jameson's argument that schizophrenia reinforces and contributes to the hegemony of capitalism. Instead, Deleuze and Guattari see the schizophrenic as capitalism's exterminating angel. For them the schizo is a radical, revolutionary, nomadic wanderer who resists all forms of oppressive power. They believe that radical political movements should "learn from the psychotic how to shake off the Oedipal yoke and the effects of power, in order to initiate a radical politics of desire freed from all beliefs." Schizophrenic sensibilities can replace ideological and dogmatic political goals with a radical form of productive desire. This "desiring-production" brings the unconscious into the real, and unleashes its radical world-making potential. Productive desire need not be solipsistic, and includes the "group psychosis" induced by radical postmodern artistic creations and political movements. Neither is desiring-production limited to clinical schizophrenics. Desiring-production marks the schizophrenic potential in everyone to resist the power of despotic signifiers and capitalist reterritorialization. Deleuze and Guattari see schizophrenia as a central part of a subversive postmodern politics with the radical potential to bring down capitalism. Jameson's view could not be more different. For him, postmodern schizophrenic culture "replicates," "reproduces," and "reinforces" the logic of capitalism. How can we resolve this contradiction which transverses the divide between modernism and postmodernism and highlights the fundamentally different political sensibilities of these two groups? It is a contradiction which causes us to question how psychoanalytical concepts and capitalism resist and reinforce each other. Most importantly, it is a contradiction that informs our reaction and resistance to consumer capitalist culture.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: fuckara on September 11, 2010, 02:27:12 PM

It looks like to me one's trying to keeping one's guard up, keeping one's distance, with their sharp edges hardened to resist being blunted and dulled by external influences... Adopting a boxer's stance when dealing with others... with toe drawing therir line of defense and battling all who dare to cross or go against them. With fists raised and determination coiled, waging their own war of independence against a do what you're told and one-size-fits-all world. Well, my friend, power is not in form but in nature.

In glassmaking there is a phenomena that occurs when a small glob of molten glass is rapidly cooled. The result is a solid, tadpole-shaped object with a bulbous head that tapers to a delicate curved tail. Despite their fragile look, Rupert's Drops seem indestructible. Direct sledgehammer blows glance off ineffectually. They were first introduced as toys in the 17th century to the court of King James I by his grandson, Prince Rupert of Bavaria. The real beauty of Rupert's Drops is not in their appearance or strength but in their nature. While seemingly indestructible, one clip or snip of delicate tail's tip explodes the Rupert's Drop into a powdery handful of harmless dust. It is the nature of Rupert's Drops, born of the rapid cooling of surface over warm interior, that accounts for their phenomena -- an explosive disintegration of form back to particle beginning.

You are born full-blown but spend much of your life by forcing others to understand you and accept you. Your function is to be more droplet of water, not ocean, for you've did-it-and-done all before. Nature is discovered in the tails of Rupert's Drops; in souls for you. Accepting that others may not ever approve or understand you, because they can't, is the snip of realization that explodes and disintegrates your defensiveness. Others, like glass, mature by the process of annealing. They take form under more evenly tempered conditions and require a slower, more steady pace for development. Through step-by-step guidance and experience, others bloom, grow, and ripen to self-realization: not you. You come with self-realization snugged into conscience. When you draw your lines of defiance and pen your lists of demands, you not only deny others access to you but limit yourself in terms of your person and purpose. Erasing that line that divides you and others frees you to be as born and meant.

Your power only reveals when you stop expecting and stop demanding confirmation of and for self. Once you accept that validation for you cannot be had externally, you lower your fists. Where once shrillness was heard and desperation felt, there is quiet and calmness instead. You hear but one voice and feel the fullness of your so-long felt but misunderstood and misused strength. Only from soul, through guidance of intuition and by way of emotions, you will receive all you need to be yourself and meet your responsibilities. Your fulfillment is experiencing, for you've already passed all possible life lessons. You are not here to serve self, but to help others BE their own selves fully.


The kind of purely intuitive and spiritual kids you talk about are the future leaders. They are here now to help others prepare for a different world, as this one, with evolutionary predictability and inevitability, shifts. These leaders will think, speak and act differently than leaders before. They won't repackage and offer same 'o, same 'o nor will they depend on charismatic salesmanship to sell their digestibility. Their focus, as leader, will not wander then from where it is now.

As rolling stones gather no moss, they gather no followers. They carry no hammers, distribute no leaflets and avoid pulpit, podium, public office and lectern, unless they must. If asked, they answer; if interested, they explore; if invited, they decide go or stay; and if required they pass, unless they require. They have matured beyond ego-need for recognition; beyond feeling better by comparison to worse; beyond pleasure by hurting; beyond obligating by helping; beyond mere of pleasing; and beyond valuing any aspiration, action or other that does not love, honour and protect life first. They lead by manner of their breathing-feeling-living example. Anything less is remiss. Anything more is meddle, muddle and unnecessary.

Dear fellow: consciousness is a personal choice, an inner journey that if travelled far and deep enough arrives at truth. Souls take care of each other. The thread of self is inextricably woven, related and inter-connected to all manner and matter of life. Every breathing thing is intimately significant and intrinsically essential, and only Co-creator humans have the power and freedom of choice to create or destroy.
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: zeitgeist on March 21, 2011, 04:22:47 PM

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.


Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.


While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Ryans5 on March 21, 2011, 05:25:30 PM
The right to bear arms is a serious problem. I know some guy on campus who got his arms surgically replaced with bear arms. He mauled half of the ATOs on campus. The school actually gave him a scholarship though for killing off the annoying frat d-bags but still, it would have been scary if he had killed any real people.
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: Sokal on April 19, 2011, 03:34:31 PM

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.


Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.


While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?


To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.
Title: Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
Post by: probe on April 27, 2011, 12:53:44 PM
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-08/31702368.jpg)

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."


So how did it go, Elaine?


Unfortunately, despite protests of this type, the courts have upheld the right to bear arms.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: Machu Picchu on April 27, 2011, 01:36:17 PM

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.


Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.


While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?


To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.


Don't get messed up here - hyper-conformity means nothing else but succumbing to the system. Resisting the system means being an anti-conformist. You can easily figure out whose idea is sane, Deleuze & Guattari's or Jameson's mentioned some posts above by "Google in English."
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: füle on April 29, 2011, 02:33:16 PM

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.


Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.


While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?


To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.


Don't get messed up here - hyper-conformity means nothing else but succumbing to the system. Resisting the system means being an anti-conformist. You can easily figure out whose idea is sane, Deleuze & Guattari's or Jameson's mentioned some posts above by "Google in English."


Finally, thank God, some common sense, in here.
Title: Re: Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
Post by: Qircom on May 02, 2011, 01:17:46 PM
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-08/31702368.jpg)

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."


So how did it go, Elaine?


Unfortunately, despite protests of this type, the courts have upheld the right to bear arms.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html


probe, in June of last year, Mayor Daley said the city would rewrite its gun ban ordinance because a Supreme Court ruling today has made the current law "unenforceable." Daley said a new ordinance would be drafted soon and would protect the residents of Chicago as well as 2nd Amendment rights.

"I'm disappointed by the decision, but it's not surprising," Daley said at a news conference. "We're still reviewing the entire decision, but it means that Chicago's current handgun ban is unenforceable, so we're working to rewrite our ordinance in a reasonable and responsible way to protect 2nd Amendment rights and protect Chicagoans from gun violence." The mayor made the announcement hours after the Supreme Court said Americans nationwide have a constitutional right to have a handgun at home for self-defense, even in cities which until now have outlawed handguns.
Title: Re: Power is Dead
Post by: ex on August 04, 2011, 12:50:12 PM

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.


Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.


While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?


To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.
 

So, what's the verdict?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: a d m i n i s t r a t o r on December 03, 2011, 02:00:30 AM

You've got to be kidding us, lawn! You obviously don't have the slighest idea what does it feel like t o kill. Here it is how researchers have described the whole process:

Concern about Being Able to Kill. Holmes' research indicates that one of the soldier's first emotional responses to killing is a concern as to whether, at the moment of truth, he will be able to kill the enemy or will "freeze up" and "let his buddies down." [...]

The Killing Stage: "Without even thinking." Usually killing in combat is completed in the heat of the moment, and for the modern, properly conditioned soldier, killing in such a circumstance is most often completed reflexively, without conscious thought. Being unable to kill is a very common experience. If on the battlefield the soldier finds himself unable to kill, he can either begin to rationalize what has occurred, or he can become fixated and traumatized by his inability to kill.

The Exhilaration Stage: "I had a Feeling of the Most Intense Satisfaction." The adrenaline of combat can be greatly increased by another high: the high of killing. What hunter of marksman has not felt a thrill of pleasure and satisfaction upon dropping his target? In combat this thrill can be greatly magnified and can be especially prevalent when the kill is completed at medium to long range. Fighter pilots, by their nature, and due to the long range of their kills, appear to be particularly susceptible to such killing addiction. For some combatants the lure of exhiliration may become more than a passing occurrence. A few may become fixated in the exhiliration stage and never feel remorse. 

The Remorse Stage: A Collage of Pain and Horror. The tremendous and intense remorse and revulsion associated with a close-range kill is expressed in these words:

Quote
"... my experience, was one of revulsion and disgust... I dropped my weapon and cried... There was so much blood... I vomited... And I cried... I felt remorse and shame. I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up."

Whether the killer denies his remorse, deals with it, or is overwhelmed by it, it is nevertheless there, almost always. The killer's remorse is real, it is common, it is intense, and it is something that he must deal with for the rest of his life.

The Rationalization and Acceptance Stage: "It Took All the Rationalization I Could Muster." The next personal-kill response stage is a lifelong process in which the killer attempts to rationalize and accept what he has done. This process may never truly be completed. The killer never completely leaves all remorse and guilt beyond, but he can usually come to accept that what he has done was necessary and right. In personal accounts of those who have killed one may notice the use of specific words. At first, for instance, use of words such as "he" "him" and "his" shows the recognition of the killer's humanity. But then the enemy's weapon is noted, the rationalization process begins, and "he" becomes "the body" and ultimately the "gook." Once the process begins, irrational and irrelevant supporting evidence is gathered, and the possession of, say, U.S.-made shoes and a watch becomes a cause for depersonalization rather than identification.


So basically you are saying that there is this resistance to the whole thing and that even if they overcome it, it comes back to haunt them? Not sure if I am getting you here 
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Dashi on December 07, 2011, 12:15:16 AM

You've got to be kidding us, lawn! You obviously don't have the slightest idea what does it feel like t o kill. Here it is how researchers have described the whole process:

Concern about Being Able to Kill. Holmes' research indicates that one of the soldier's first emotional responses to killing is a concern as to whether, at the moment of truth, he will be able to kill the enemy or will "freeze up" and "let his buddies down." [...]

The Killing Stage: "Without even thinking." Usually killing in combat is completed in the heat of the moment, and for the modern, properly conditioned soldier, killing in such a circumstance is most often completed reflexively, without conscious thought. Being unable to kill is a very common experience. If on the battlefield the soldier finds himself unable to kill, he can either begin to rationalize what has occurred, or he can become fixated and traumatized by his inability to kill.

The Exhilaration Stage: "I had a Feeling of the Most Intense Satisfaction." The adrenaline of combat can be greatly increased by another high: the high of killing. What hunter of marksman has not felt a thrill of pleasure and satisfaction upon dropping his target? In combat this thrill can be greatly magnified and can be especially prevalent when the kill is completed at medium to long range. Fighter pilots, by their nature, and due to the long range of their kills, appear to be particularly susceptible to such killing addiction. For some combatants the lure of exhilaration may become more than a passing occurrence. A few may become fixated in the exhilaration stage and never feel remorse. 

The Remorse Stage: A Collage of Pain and Horror. The tremendous and intense remorse and revulsion associated with a close-range kill is expressed in these words:

Quote
"... my experience, was one of revulsion and disgust... I dropped my weapon and cried... There was so much blood... I vomited... And I cried... I felt remorse and shame. I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up."

Whether the killer denies his remorse, deals with it, or is overwhelmed by it, it is nevertheless there, almost always. The killer's remorse is real, it is common, it is intense, and it is something that he must deal with for the rest of his life.

The Rationalization and Acceptance Stage: "It Took All the Rationalization I Could Muster." The next personal-kill response stage is a lifelong process in which the killer attempts to rationalize and accept what he has done. This process may never truly be completed. The killer never completely leaves all remorse and guilt beyond, but he can usually come to accept that what he has done was necessary and right. In personal accounts of those who have killed one may notice the use of specific words. At first, for instance, use of words such as "he" "him" and "his" shows the recognition of the killer's humanity. But then the enemy's weapon is noted, the rationalization process begins, and "he" becomes "the body" and ultimately the "gook." Once the process begins, irrational and irrelevant supporting evidence is gathered, and the possession of, say, U.S.-made shoes and a watch becomes a cause for depersonalization rather than identification.


So basically you are saying that there is this resistance to the whole thing and that even if they overcome it, it comes back to haunt them? Not sure if I am getting you here


administrator, when you say, "this resistance to the whole thing," don't you think you are being a bit too casual about such a serious thing as killing? Of course there is resistance, and then guilt haunting people for their entire lives, in case they overcome the resistance and actually kill someone.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: vergene on December 11, 2011, 12:52:45 AM

You've got to be kidding me with this thread - an individual who has the intent to kill will do it with whatever he finds on his way - for example, cars are known to have been used extensively as weapons. Cars as weapons are less used to kill than in road accidents, but do occur from time to time. The driver may be drunk or on drugs, or just homicidal - cars can be weapons of death just as fearful as the loaded guns.


in lieu of, it's not that simple - the very act of getting a gun shows strong intent on your part to harm someone. You drive a car to get to work, to the store and so on, and only incidentally to harm someone.


Dear pome: that's what this thread is all about: guns should not be available to purchase for a fee, as the case is in the US.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Julie Fern on December 11, 2011, 01:42:13 PM
it not help situation make guns free.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: mauchly on December 20, 2011, 03:09:13 AM

Play it here,

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/cube.htm


There's also a book I believe, isn't it?


email, I heard they went bankrupt - Sandra's taken a job at the local community college, distancing herself from all previous undertakings, and Terry's been discredited for being a fraud, copying others' people research and passing it for his own!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Julie Fern on December 20, 2011, 07:26:45 AM
not to mention that lil' emma has chicken pox and rupert lost his job!
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: R Deutch on December 27, 2011, 01:54:22 AM

[...] I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


Depends on the kind of people you contact for this kind of thing - some will do it for $5K, but they say immigration people usually ask for 10 grand (for a green card, assuming you are already here with no papers).
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Question or Answer on January 02, 2012, 08:45:07 PM

$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


Depends on the kind of people you contact for this kind of thing - some will do it for $5K, but they say immigration people usually ask for 10 grand (for a green card, assuming you are already here with no papers).


R., I tend to believe it's much tougher to arrange to get a green card in the US, as opposed to some visa to enter the country that we've heard people buy to get in here. Because of the corruption charges that can be brought more readily against the perps of such actions in this country, people go thru an attorney to handle the matter. So you do pay a fee, but it's the atty's fee, hence legal.

That does not mean, of course, that any atty will do - one would have to locate the right one to handle his particular, specific concerns :)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Question or Answer on January 02, 2012, 10:09:59 PM

Unfortunately, despite protests of this type, the courts have upheld the right to bear arms.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html


probe, in June of last year, Mayor Daley said the city would rewrite its gun ban ordinance because a Supreme Court ruling today has made the current law "unenforceable." Daley said a new ordinance would be drafted soon and would protect the residents of Chicago as well as 2nd Amendment rights.

"I'm disappointed by the decision, but it's not surprising," Daley said at a news conference. "We're still reviewing the entire decision, but it means that Chicago's current handgun ban is unenforceable, so we're working to rewrite our ordinance in a reasonable and responsible way to protect 2nd Amendment rights and protect Chicagoans from gun violence." The mayor made the announcement hours after the Supreme Court said Americans nationwide have a constitutional right to have a handgun at home for self-defense, even in cities which until now have outlawed handguns.


Qircom, I think we need to take the 2 Amendment and the actual Supreme Court decisions on the issue seriously enough - people should be able to carry guns for self-defense. We just need to have background checks for history of mental illness and a ban on being able to buy guns if someone is ever involuntarily committed.  We should also have mandatory, and very stiff, penalties for commission of a crime with a firearm as a deterrent.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: GiuGiaku on January 23, 2012, 08:25:19 PM
Quote

opinion, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis raises some interesting ethical issues: German bioethicist Edgar Dahl, for instance, raises and dismisses 5 objections to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed" to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual as well as heterosexual children. Dahl has previously argued that PGD should be allowed for sex selection for social reasons.]

Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Extending the application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence, raises serious moral, legal, and social issues. The most challenging ethical issues are posed by the prospect of using PGD to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence. The possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: if a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?

1. The first objection that can be raised might be as follows: PGD is a medical procedure designed to detect genetic disorders. Since homosexuality is not a disease, PGD should not be employed to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. This is a familiar objection in debates over PGD. However, as familiar as it may be, it is certainly not a persuasive one. We have already become accustomed to a medical system in which physicians often provide services that have no direct medical benefit but that do have great personal value for the individuals seeking it. Given the acceptance of breast enlargement, hair replacement, ultrasound assisted liposuction and other forms of cosmetic surgery, one cannot, without calling that system into question, condemn a practice merely because it uses a medical procedure for lifestyle or child-rearing choices.

2. A second objection could claim that a state permitting the use of PGD to ensure a heterosexual orientation in one's children would be open to the charge of discrimination against its homosexual citizens. But this claim is simply untenable. Granting its citizens a right to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children is not the same as placing them under a duty to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. Only a state coercing its citizens into using PGD to prevent homosexual offspring would be open to the charge of discrimination.

3. A third objection might assert that, even though it would not be discrimination on the part of the state, it would certainly be discrimination on the part of the prospective parents if they were to use PGD to prevent the birth of homosexual children. This argument is similarly misguided, though. Preferring a heterosexual over a homosexual child does not in itself in any way betray a negative judgment about the value of gay and lesbian individuals. Admittedly, some parents would certainly seek PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children because they are bigots anxiously adhering to the old clichés that homosexuality is a `disease', a `perversion' or a `sin'. Still, most parents using PGD to select the sexual orientation of their offspring would probably do so simply because they wish to see their children getting married, building a family and having children of their own. And the desire to have children who share the same sexual orientation as oneself is certainly not a morally objectionable interest.

4. A fourth objection may be that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children will impede the cause of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement as it is likely to lead to a gradual decline of the homosexual population. More precisely, it could be argued that a decrease in the number of gay and lesbian persons will inevitably cause a decrease in the public support for gay and lesbian people. This is, of course, a factual claim for which empirical data must be marshalled. Given the burdens and expenses of the procedure, it is very unlikely that PGD will ever considerably reduce the number of homosexual individuals. More importantly, reducing the number of gays and lesbians does not necessarily imply a reduced concern for the cause of homosexual people, as is evidenced by the case of disabled persons. Although the number of people born with disabilities has decreased, the support for people with disabilities has increased. Hence, it is far from being obvious that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual offspring would inevitably worsen the situation of homosexual people.

5. A fifth objection might point to the fact that PGD generally implies discarding embryos. Thus, it could be argued that the desire to choose the sexual orientation of one's children does not justify the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos. Whether or not this objection is viable entirely depends on the moral status accorded to embryos. Since this is not the place to review all the arguments for and against the `sanctity of human life', I restrict myself to saying that I doubt that there are sound reasons for granting embryos individual rights. The purpose of individual rights is the moral and legal protection of fundamental interests. Since embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests there is simply no basis to grant them rights. If at all, embryos might be seen as having some `symbolic value' preventing them from being destroyed for any purpose whatsoever. Since the desire to have children of a particular sexual orientation is a morally legitimate reason, creating and destroying embryos of the undesired sexual orientation would certainly be justified.


As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate, and reminding people that doctors do not hesitate to apply euthanasia in way too many cases - that is kill people who are alive (well, still alive) - would it be "that" condemnable to kill an embryo (which is not yet a "fetus") - something that for all practical purposes we'd consider "not living"? FYI, here are for you the guidelines medical personal follow when applying euthanasia in the US, as they were presented to me by the medical professionals when my husband was dying:

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: G i m m e on January 24, 2012, 07:50:36 PM

[...] raises and dismisses 5 objections to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed" to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual as well as heterosexual children. [...]

Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? [...] The possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: if a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?

[...]


So basically, if this will work and we the people would opt for not bringing to life gay people, I would not have to worry any more that my son may come home from work one day and tell me, "Dad, I'm quitting my job, my boss asked me to suck his d i c k and I told him No!" 

Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Julie Fern on January 25, 2012, 06:48:05 AM
how about preselecting for anyone who like mitt romney?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Habibe on January 25, 2012, 11:37:52 PM

As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate [...]


Mother, does one take the stance very often?
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: breach of contract on January 27, 2012, 05:59:28 PM


As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate, and reminding people that doctors do not hesitate to apply euthanasia in way too many cases - that is kill people who are alive (well, still alive) - would it be "that" condemnable to kill an embryo (which is not yet a "fetus") - something that for all practical purposes we'd consider "not living"? FYI, here are for you the guidelines medical personal follow when applying euthanasia in the US, as they were presented to me by the medical professionals when my husband was dying:

  • It is active euthanasia that's illegal in most of the United States.
  • Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain (which includes a dose that might be incidentally lethal) at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths
  • Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate.


What is this?? It just doesn't make sense to compare in whatsof u c k i n gever way the two of them.

If you browse back some pages on this thread there's a poster who tries to draw an asinine parallel between the "interpretations" of the Second and First Amendments, only to go to great lengths to somehow defend his view as to the appropriateness of the comparison. Here it is:


The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla's mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=30378fe733a1343036be63a3829d5b20&topic=3006869.msg3055769#msg3055769
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: beepster on February 04, 2012, 01:51:27 PM

As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate [...]


Mother, does one take the stance very often?


LOL Habibe, you're so funny! ;)
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Country Day on February 10, 2012, 04:48:11 PM

[...]

The fundamental theme of our historical period, domination, readily implies that of liberation as the objective to be achieved (given the fact that themes of any era are always interacting dialectically with their opposites) It is by means of critical thinking that individuals will be able to understand the world in totality, not in fragments, achieving a clearer perception of the whole. To this end, a dialectical method of thought, exemplified in the analysis of a "coded" situation is presented. The "decoding" on the part of students/learners will guarantee moving from the part to the whole and then returning to the parts, so that the Subject recognizes oneself in the coded concrete situation and recognizes the latter as a situation in which he finds himself, as well as with the other people; accomplished as it should, this makes possible for the abstract to be "transported" to the concrete realm, by the critical perception of the subject himself. The task of the teacher becomes the "representing" of the universe of themes to the people from whom it was initially received -- presented to them as a "problem."


I'm familiar with the method - the thing is that placing the workers in these coding/decoding situations for them to actually appreciate the deep * & ^ % they're in won't work - unless it's being done all the time, or at least for a very long time, say 10 years or so.


Are you really telling me that 10 years is a *long* time period to accomplish such a task?! Like that of the REHUMANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE???
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: Saction8 on February 13, 2012, 02:53:54 PM

(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/04/200_frances_shand_kydd.jpg)
Frances Shand Kydd
"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."


Damn, that's harsh. Especially considering that would make her the mother of a whore and the princes of England sons of a whore.  Ouch


Well, I guess when she said it, she was aware of that, 008, and yet she went for it.
Title: Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
Post by: entitatitivity on February 14, 2012, 04:59:57 PM

[...]

Excuse my level of detail now, but are you aware of the straight/married men's paranoia? The kind of unhealthy paranoia that white-collar "straight" guys entertain, because of the way the society they're part of, expects them to be and behave?! These "straight" men will NEVER, EVER have a photo online. They talk for hours online, needing to be convinced, only to NEVER show up to meet anyone in person. They will play e-mail games wherein they'll send 15 messages back and forth and mysteriously STOP responding the moment they're asked to put up or shut up (they choose "shut up"). "Straight" men make a big deal out of telling you about their wives and girlfriends and how they are able to "get away" with it, which is what they actually do not.

[...]
 
You've got to love how these "straight" men orgasm in less than 60 seconds, the minute they LOOK at a penis in real life. That sure is HOT! You've got to love how straight men tell you they have "no experience" and have only "sucked one cock." You've to actually look at these men, who are not sure who or what they are, and who are lacking in any sort of self-confidence whatsoever, pretending to be one thing and actually being something else.

[...] 


mauchly, it's not that simple - many straight men do not have the right information about their body (and its needs) - you would be surprised to learn what kinds of fears they entertain with regard to the sexual contact with other men!

I work as a nurse for a community hospital that also caters to the gay community - we get all too often gay men in the closet, from miles and miles away, who ask us for condoms and other stuff related specifically to gay sex - in the process we are shocked to find out how naive they are, as well as what tight attitudes they have in relation to the whole thing!