Law School Discussion

"Right To Bear Arms"

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #180 on: August 08, 2008, 01:02:04 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?

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #181 on: August 08, 2008, 02:51:26 PM »
Here it is the Table of Contents of the "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare"

http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=19529532fh0.jpg

Right to Bear Arms
« Reply #182 on: August 10, 2008, 07:09:39 PM »



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."



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...

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #183 on: August 12, 2008, 11:19:31 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.


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.




ouffha

  • ****
  • 114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #184 on: August 13, 2008, 03:03:42 AM »

"Everyone has a right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall.. What's there to be misconstrued about?" - Brian Griffin

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #185 on: August 13, 2008, 10:00:19 AM »



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."



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?

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #186 on: August 16, 2008, 07:43:19 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?



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.

"All is One"
« Reply #187 on: August 19, 2008, 05:05:29 PM »

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



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.

Re: "All is One"
« Reply #188 on: August 20, 2008, 11:15:23 AM »

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.



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.

Re: "All is One"
« Reply #189 on: August 21, 2008, 05:43:00 PM »


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.