This thread is to discuss the right of self defense. This translates directly to the right to keep and bear arms in my opinion.

I have given this much thought. In every nation that is built on central control be it a dictator, king, or other type of central authority the right to keep and bear arms is restricted. This dates back as far as you care to go in human history. In the feudal period in Japan and in Europe and in Asia only those elite who were close to the central authority were given this right.

All others were subjects and had no fundamental right. In Japan you simply got on your knees and bowed your head so the Samurai could cut off your head if you offended him or broke the law in some way.

This is the reason for the gesture of knighthood in Europe of bending the knee and bowing the head. This was meaning my life is yours do with it as you will I am your subject.

Then when this loyalty was established then and only then were you given the right to bear arms. But you did so for the king.

It is clear in the US constitution that this whole ideal of the right of the sovereign to control your right to self defense was abhorred and rejected. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to self defense. Being given this personal right to bear arms means you are subject to no king or central control. It meant that you were your own man and could protect your own life and those you love.

You did not have to wait till the police or soldiers arrived to protect you. You could take care of your own life and those of your family.

To ever give up this basic US Constitutional right is to be guilty of being ignorant of why you have this right in the first place. Study your history and you will see. This basic and fundamental right is the second amendment in the US constitution for one reason.

That is to say that no king and no police or army is established above your authority over your own life. Give up this right and you give up your basic right for your freedom to exist in the first place.

I was so disappointed to see the Australians, so much like Americans in their love of freedom give up to socialist pressure and give in and loose this most basic right. Now just try and take it back and see what happens. I was heart sick to hear that the Australians had blundered and given up their right to self defense.

Soon you will remember why that right was so important to your fore fathers. the time is coming when a greater central control will seek to dominate every country and political system. They will all bend the knee that can not defend themselves.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this load of hooey.

Did you copy that out of your NRA guidebook or an op-ed in "Soldier of Fortune" magazine?

In the feudal period in Japan and in Europe and in Asia only those elite who were close to the central authority were given this right.

Well, sort of. Keep in mind that in England for a while just about everyone had to practice with the longbow. Every weekend, out to the back paddock to shoot targets. At one stage this rule was so big that it was illegal in England to play any other sport than archery on weekends.


All others were subjects and had no fundamental right. In Japan you simply got on your knees and bowed your head so the Samurai could cut off your head if you offended him or broke the law in some way.

Yeah, that kinda sucks. The samurai had no concept of honour, only of station and rank and privelage. Luckily the people woke up after a few hundred years and kicked the crap out of them.


It is clear in the US constitution that this whole ideal of the right of the sovereign to control your right to self defense was abhorred and rejected. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to self defense. Being given this personal right to bear arms means you are subject to no king or central control.

I believe the USA constitution says "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 statement, I believe, is for the protection of individual states against the federal authority. The USA is, after all, the "United States", as in a collection of individual states submitting to the overall leadersip of a federal authority. That statement mentions a well-regulated militia for the state, not individuals bearing arms.


You did not have to wait till the police or soldiers arrived to protect you. You could take care of your own life and those of your family.

The USA constitution, it seems to me, makes that protection under the statement: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This statement is not clearly applied to state or federal authorities, so I would assume it means that citizens should be safe in their homes and all from all threats. The guns bit is covered by that well-regulated militia statement.


I was so disappointed to see the Australians, so much like Americans in their love of freedom give up to socialist pressure and give in and loose this most basic right. Now just try and take it back and see what happens. I was heart sick to hear that the Australians had blundered and given up their right to self defense.

What exactly are you talking about there?

Im GLAD that in Australia the ownership of guns is restricted. It means there is less chance of killing someone (or BEING killed) in the heat of the moment. It might not protect me from ALL murders but i read (don't know where) that most victoms are killed by someone they know and that most murders are crimes of passion.

The samurai had no concept of honour, only of station and rank and privelage.

Never heard of Bushido then?
I think (because you say something like that) that you haven't got the slightest idear of what Japanese culture is all about.

Below are some quotes from the founders and signers of the constitution for the United States of America. I think they best reflect the intent of the second amendment. They make it very clear that the intent is the personal right of the people to keep and bear arms.

---------------------------quotes-------------------------

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived the use of them . . .

--- Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.

--- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

--- Samuel Adams

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

--- Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

--- James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discression... in private self-defense...

--- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of the UAS, 471 (1788)


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government.

--- Thomas Jefferson

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.

--- James Madison

Betavoltaic
Thanks for those quotes, very interesting.

Fukushi
Japanese culture? As I understand it, the Japanese people rose up and crushed the samurai class beacuse the samurai were tyrannical bastards. Meiji? An army of samurai versus an army of people with guns? Lots of dead samurai. Ring any bells? Bushido was the way of the samurai in the same manner that chivalry was the way of the feudal lords on medieval Europe. It was a code designed to maintain states and keep the classes intact. It kept the many collared by the few.

Japanese culture? As I understand it, the Japanese people rose up and crushed the samurai class beacuse the samurai were tyrannical bastards. Meiji? An army of samurai versus an army of people with guns? Lots of dead samurai. Ring any bells? Bushido was the way of the samurai in the same manner that chivalry was the way of the feudal lords on medieval Europe. It was a code designed to maintain states and keep the classes intact. It kept the many collared by the few.

Actually, "feudalism" was the system that kept the classes intact and the lords in power. "Chivalry" was a code of honor. Much the same way that "feudalism" was the system that kept the lords in power in Japan (though different from European feudalism). Bushido was the code of honor and conduct of Samurai, and Samurai were the servants of those who truly ruled.

As an example of honor, yes a samurai could cut off somebody's head for a perceived insult. And then the samurai had to go before his lord and explain what had happened. If the lord thought that he had acted out of line, he would order the samurai to kill himself. And then the samurai would do it on the spot. There are plenty of historical examples of when a samurai got out of line and killed a commoner, and then had to kill himself as a result.

To get back to the main point...

A government is essentially a monopoly on force. According to Hobbes, individuals within a society give up their rights to defend themselves in favor of allowing the government to defend them. This is the idea of "social contract". In the absence of a social contract, it will be "man against man" where the strong dominate the weak.

The problem arises when you have a corrupt government ruling over a population without enough power to change the government, or a government that is unable to provide for the basic safety of its people.

Striking a balance between these two factors -- the people being protected by the government, and the people protecting themselves FROM the government -- is one of the central themes of the nature and role of government in society today.

For the main point:
The way as I perceive it, it is indeed a choice of balance,...but every weapon increases the risk of it being (ab)used,....with who knows what and how many people around.

In a way the right to carry weapons has been rendered useless, because look at what we the people are up against: a professional army,...whith heavy weaponary,...satatlites who can beam you to death,...wavelengths that can damage your brains,...lights that can burn trough anything,...ultasoundwaves that can splatter your guts inside-out.

hehehe,...what are we to do? Take up arms? hehehe: suicide,...
maby better to die like that then to live in a world like this? No : violence never leeds to prosperity,...of the mind. And the NEW WORLD ORDER should know that and also that it's not a good idear to try to control the 'entropy of toughts' that the brain needs in order to improve,...and to adapt to new circumstances: AI and stuff,...

actually the police in our country was even founded for the control of riots,....yes: to keep the peoples under wrap.
Ofcourse there are enough people who don't favor the ruling goverment especially that of the NEW WOLRD ORDER.
I think in this way the use of weaponary is useless,....because we're not only up against an enemy that has no boundaries,...but also has the power to destroy any kind of resistance,...exept: terrorism,...

singel-unit-cells,...often even one man/woman are not something you can not just easely single-out.
Exept when THE ORDER will find it's reason within this to conduct the horrible realisation of legalisation of bio-telemetry protection under the mean stream vision of the people that it's really nessesary. Aka: Georgy Orgy. Barcodes and implants and stuff already happening.

'They' make use of the media: making the people actually believe in the Sh*t they are selling : that they are in danger,...
It's all actually a way to either: pave the way for some profitable and lucrative bussiness,...or to destroy some of the 'ennemy'.

wich I think is not a good concept: 'ennemy' pfff! I considder this the most hypocrite word you can take in your mouth.
Okay: we 'ARE' in danger,...all the time,...but the right of carying arms is not usefull any-more.

who takes up wich values and straps a bomb around him/herself,....?
With him/her dissapears a whole universe to explore,...a whole life to live,....and by all the heavens of the universe: who knows how many innocent people will lose theirs too?

No I therefor DO NOT considder weaponary or the use of them a good way to change things,...or to protest.
it will only give the goverment the exuse to imply even more FREEDOM-RESTICTING laws upon the people.

But doing nothing isn't good either. you just can't be inact and aspect that everything happens according to some divine rule or law of things to happen and that everything will turn out well: that system is acctually being abused all over the world to surpress the minds of people and to even make them believe it was 'some' god's will,...

And I consider this verry naïve and neglecting reality.

All we can do is find ourselves a good lawyer and take on THE NEW WORLD ORDER
and EXPOSE them for the tiranny and supression they bring within the harts and lives of people.

In a revolution there are also unvoluntary victims,...
Only the future and not history can tell if the revolution was succesfull,...
so : we should not look upon history to take charge of our future,...altough there are lessons to learn,...a man must always adapt him/herself to the circumstances of the time beign.
And the circumstances don't call for armament but for WORLD-WIDE-DISARMAMENT!!!

if you want to make a living out of peace then consider this:
-NO more army's,...
-no more weapons,...
-no more people to send people to their deaths.
-the less weapons circulate troughout the world, the more the use of them will be non-conformant,....and declared as imoral.

Thx
:bugeye:

Adam:
Do you take an othe when you join the Australian milatary and if so what is it?

also do you know where i could find the othe of office that the PM and his minsters swear to?

betavoltaic:
I trust our democrasy even though i DON'T trust the pollies. I trust in the separation of powers that stops the Gov from doing anything they like. They are elected to rule us under the rules set out in the constitution. Their are a lot of people who would like to get rid of our state goverments because they are just one more level.

Australians have never had to fight our way to freedom like the USA did. The closest we ever came was the Ereka stokade on Bakes hill. After that small battle the gold miners were represented in the House of reps. We have fort to maintan our freedom but against OTHER goverments not our own.

Our polles may be corupt to some exstent. They may use undersirable tatics to get into goverment but for the most part what they do is what they belive is the best thing for the country. I don't like John Howard but he has done what HE belive is in our best interests. My problem with him is I don't agree with his vision but i would NEVER acuss him of not working in the interests of the country

Think i will post a link to our constitution if i can find one

By the way our police are placed so they (along with other emergency services) can get to anywhere in 5 min.

As such the human mind can not be taken away unless it is given up for control by another. Be this other a government or a person.

The human mind is without doubt the most powerful of all weapons on the Earth. Without the mind what is the sword but a length of steel.

Guns are not the only weapons effective against a tyrant but they are a measure of force that must be countered, because of that they have tactical advantage if they are in wide spread use in the hands of the public. The gun like any weapon is just a tool but it is an effective one and enables us to arm a large population in such a way that they become a deterrent to force being applied against us.

We have one set weapons that are far more effective and can be distributed and used far and wide without a lot of training. Cameras and computers and private networks to disseminate information. Truth that can not be denied because it is recorded and distributed widely and quickly. That is one very effective weapon against tyrants. Self defense takes on many forms. Guns are one of the early methods of equalization. Others are evolving every day.

Did you actually read what i wrote?:bugeye:

Yes the defence against goverment coruption is the Media and democrasy. That is the scociaty we live in and i LIKE it that way. I don't WANT to own a gun. I have the police to defend me from crimanalls and the Army to defend me from other govements. I defend myself from OUR goverments potential coruption by keeping myself informed of whats happening and taking voting seriously. In that respect we are MUCH more protected than the USA we all take an interest in our goverment because we HAVE to. It is illegle NOT to vote here. That is all the protection I WANT or NEED

Asguard, you might try looking around at www.federal.gov.au.

When I joined up we swore loyalty to the Queen, and her proxy the Governor General. But I believe that has changed now.

Thanks adam, I couldn't find it though

Its strange you swear to the Queen when its the Paraliment who calls you out

betavoltaic:
The point is that the Goverment, The Milatary The courts and the Police are there to serve the people of Australia under the Australian constitution.

We shouldn't NEED to defend ourselves from these instiutions because they are there for our BENIFIT.

Shouldn't this really be under the politics section?

Betavoltar,
I have given this much thought.
I am starting to wonder: what is your standard of "much thought"?
Given the very one-sided views expressed in your posts, it looks like you have been spending much time pleasing your confimation bias.

Give us information on:
* What are the reasons for the (other) civilised countries to abandon the right to bear arms?

* Are there any arguments against the proposition that the right to self-defence is essential to a state?

* What alternatives are there than the right to bear arms to secure the right to self-defence?

After this have been answered and you still feel the same way, there is one more question to answer:
* What will you do if you would find out that the people have more freedom than they can handle?

Merlijn

I'm not sure I like the idea of everyone having guns. Look what has happened to the USA. People just shooting each other all over the place. Lots of accidents too.

If the criminals have guns, then the law-abiding citizens have guns to protect themselves, whon't the criminals then just get armour and bigger guns? And won't there then be simply the same situation but with more guns around?

Asguard: Also, I think the oath I took mentioned service to, and protection of, Australia and the Australia people. Not sure. They also made me sign that stupid Official Secrets Act, and I forgot about that a few minutes later too. :)

Hahah. I love this.

Give everyone guns, just get rid of Mortal Kombat. That oughta get rid of violence.


Hahahahaha.



If you're a half-decent parent you will influence your kids beyond Sub-Zero and Mortal Kombat.

If you're a half-decent parent that is.

Tylor,

Video games figure in school shootings (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/19990427games4.asp)

The war-toy connection (http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/10/05/p9s2.htm)

Placing blame (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/blame/)

SCREEN VIOLENCE AND YOUTH (http://www.voa.gov/thisweek/sampler/scree.html)

Health organizations release statement linking violence in media and children (http://www.christiancitizen.com/sep/nat-03.html)

Is violent pop culture holding kids hostage?
By C. RAY HALL
The Courier-Journal
Sunday, December 6, 1998


The video surveillance cameras at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., must have captured a few images of a boy in a trench coat last May 21.

In an age where nothing seems real unless it happens on television, this was art imitating life imitating art.

The boy in the trench coat, Kip Kinkel, allegedly murdered two students and wounded 25 others, hours after killing his father and mother. Media reports say he watched "South Park" at home, in the company of his dead parents. The show could always make him laugh.

In "South Park," a fourth-grader named Kenny is killed weekly, only to reappear in the next episode.

There is, as yet, no knowing whether Kip Kinkel expected his victims to rise from the dead. Witnesses seem to indicate otherwise: He intended for them to stay dead.

"If you were still standing, he'd shoot you again," says Betina Lynn, a senior who was shot twice.

Larry Bentz, Betina's principal at Thurston, says it's "time to grow up and stop denying the fact the level of violence in the media desensitizes kids to violence.

"I'm not talking about just films -- I'm talking about video games, the newspapers and the news. You see these kids who live in front of those video games and they're blowing characters away, and they come back to life as soon as you turn the button back on. How can that not desensitize kids to violence?"

Desensitize? Video games may actually train children to commit violence, in the opinion of Dave Grossman, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and author of a book on the subject, "On Killing."

Grossman has had an uncomfortably close view of teen-age violence -- he teaches psychology at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro; he was among the first counselors to arrive at Westside Middle School after the shootings there last March.

What he calls "point-and-shoot" video games -- with toy guns wielded by the players -- are remarkably similar to military training devices, he says. The Army knows that its devices can condition a soldier to fire reflexively, to overcome natural inclinations not to kill.

"We've taught our children to kill," Grossman says, "and we've taught them to like it."

As gunfire sullied the Arkansas air last March, a Westside High School teacher alerted her class that someone was outside, shooting middle-schoolers. Her students' response stunned her, Grossman says: "Keep in mind, these were the older brothers and sisters of kids in middle school. And do you know what the teacher said they did when she told them? They laughed."

Go to a theater, he suggests, sit through a horror film, and watch the audience. You will see children too young to be there, and they will laugh at the gore, because they are conditioned to find it pleasurable, he says.

Blaming any act of violence on popular culture seems highly problematic, at best, and irresponsible guesswork, at worst. Millions of youngsters are exposed to the same images without resorting to violence.

"I know that our kids come to us already seeing something like 13,000 killings on television," says Jamon Kent, the school superintendent in Springfield. (And he doesn't mean before high school. He means before grade school.)

Pop culture bombards young people
with messages of violence

Russell Skiba, director of Indiana University's Institute for Child Study, says, "Even the heroes that I see on television are solving their problems through the use of violence."

And Dr. Pamela Riley, a former school principal, adds, "In the past, the No. 1 influence on young people was the family. But it seems more and more today that young people are influenced by peers -- and the media.

"I think the type of violence that young people are seeing is much more severe," says Riley, executive director of the Center for the Prevention of School Violence, in Raleigh, N.C.

"I don't want to necessarily blame movies, Satanism, rock and rap for everything that goes on," she says. "But I think the research shows it can be linked to more aggressive behavior. And I don't think we have a true reading yet on . . . just what kind of effect that's going to have."

Many studies of media violence and its effects are equivocal, Skiba says. "But," he adds, "if you look at the research on children's exposure to violence in the media . . . at all levels, whether it be elementary school or middle school, or high school -- even preschool -- exposure to more television violence yields greater aggression."

Skiba worked on a White House school-violence task force that produced "Early Warning, Timely Response," a guide sent to educators across the country. The lead investigator was Kevin P. Dwyer, president-elect of the National Association of School Psychologists.

"All the media research tells us that most interpersonal problems are solved on television through violence," Dwyer says. "About 86 percent of television movies use violence to solve an interpersonal problem. And women are victims much more on television than they are in real life."

(In the four school-shooting cases examined in this series, 41 of the 59 victims were females. In Arkansas, 14 of 15 victims were females. Two, and possibly three, of the shooters in these cases targeted girls who had spurned them: In Mississippi, Luke Woodham murdered Christina Menefee, the girl he professed to love.)

"I'm not naive enough to think (if) a child watches a movie . . . it's going to make him do this," Riley says. "I think there are multiple factors."

It is tempting to look for pop-culture influences whenever a boy shoots up his school. And it would be implausible not to find them: What teen-ager isn't affected by pop culture?

Michael Carneal, the 14-year-old who killed three and wounded five at Heath High School a year ago, was linked early to "The Basketball Diaries," in which the hero fantasizes about shooting up his school. Carneal told police he had watched the movie. But he later told a psychologist he didn't remember much about the film, and denied that it played a role in the shooting.

School murders in Kentucky and Washington do seem to have at least one common pop-culture connection: Stephen King's "Rage." In the book, a boy takes his class hostage and murders his teacher.

In 1993, Scott Pennington took his senior English class captive at East Carter High School, in Grayson, Ky. He killed his teacher and a custodian.

Three years later, on Groundhog Day, 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis of Moses Lake, Wash., put on a long black Western gunfighter's coat, hid his weapons under it and took over his Frontier Junior High algebra class. The toll: two dead students, one wounded student and one dead teacher.

King wrote "Rage" (under the pseudonym Richard Bachman) near the end of his own tortured teen-age years. In those days, he told Court TV, he keenly remembered the feeling of "rejection, of being an outsider, what it was like to be teased relentlessly, and to entertain visions, fantasies of revenge on the people who'd done it to you -- the system that had done it to you."

King called his work "a troubling book for me" and expressed "regret that I ever wrote the material."

Linda Ryker, whose sons, Jake and Joshua, helped subdue the shooter in Oregon, says: "You can blame it on all the inanimate objects that you want to -- the violent movies, the television programs, the games the kids play. But you're not . . . teaching them to own up to their responsibility."

Skiba suggests -- though he says much more research needs to be done -- that constant exposure to violent imagery, combined with permissive or uninvolved parenting, may explain why some teen-agers turn murderous. Parents need to explain that television does not reflect reality, he says.

Fantasy and reality collided in the case of Loukaitis, the Washington teen-ager. In court testimony, Loukaitis's mother recalled her own dark fantasy: She wanted to kidnap her husband and his lover at gunpoint, tie them up, and make them watch as she killed herself. She had revealed this fantasy to her 14-year-old son. To his mother, he repeated the advice in the preface of King's book "Rage": Pick up a pen and write about it. Don't pick up a gun.

But Loukaitis did not follow his own advice, or King's counsel. Instead, he picked up a gun, took over his algebra class and shot the boy who had called him a "faggot." (There are indications two of the boys in the four cases examined in this series -- Michael Carneal and Kip Kinkel -- were similarly teased at school.)

In the face of such finality, words hardly avail. But, on Court TV, King gave it a try, preaching patience. "Wait," he advised troubled teens. "It gets better. These things pass. I think that for most of us we look back on high school as a bad dream we had once, and we got out of it without having to pick up a gun and shoot anybody."

"There is, as yet, no knowing whether Kip Kinkel expected his victims to rise from the dead. Witnesses seem to indicate otherwise: He intended for them to stay dead"

Yes, that's right. It is not a paren'ts responsibility to teach their kids that being killed does not allow for re-birth and that life does not run in weekly episodes.

You'll make a great parent.

Tyler,
The subject was relevance to my statement about the connection between point and shoot combat simulation games and the increase in gun violence.

The evidence suggests that while video game and movie violence desensitized children to violence it also trains them to be proficient killers. Much in the same way as military combat simulations teach soldiers how to kill more efficiently and reflexively.

This has a lot more to do with the modern phenomena of child killers then the guns themselves do. The guns have been in the home for hundreds of years here in the US. They were never taken to school and used to shoot other students until very recently in history.

That time frame is in direct relevance to the use of video combat death games and high realism video and movie violence.

Having had extensive military combat training myself I know what I am talking about here. These combat simulations are training kids to kill. That is the fact in my opinion. The gun has a part in it but it as I stated has been in the home for hundreds of years in America. Now suddenly it comes to pass that children are shooting each other and they are doing so under the influence of something. It is not just poor parenting it is combat training technology.

I played Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter and every other fighting game under the sun for years. I perfected myself at shooting games, first-person shooters. I am a huge fan of shooting games (though more so a fan of racing/strategy games!). I also was taught by my ex-Royal Navy grandfather (who fought at D-Day, I just found out) how to shoot a shotgun, handgun and 22.

Know why I never got the urge to kill my classmates (even when I was in a suicidal state)? Because my parents raised me to be more of a human being.



Blaming video games.... just parents trying to take the blame off themselves again.




Oh and by the way, if you have had extensive military training (and I'm not doubting this, mind you), you would of course have realized by now the HUGE difference in firing a gun and firing a nintendo controller.


And let me say you this. If you remove the video game, you possibly get a lesser chance of a kid being violent (though I still say it's a paernts duty, not the video game industry's, to instill respect and conscienceness and humanity into a child). If you remove the gun from the house, you get no shooting.

Look we have the same games and movies less guns and surprise less murders per 1000 head of population.

There are things inplace to protect us from cruption
They are called:

Elections
The separation of powers

we don't need anymore

and can i ask you
if the police are so corupt would you shoot a cop and do you think that would save you from death (you have the DP rember)?

That Betavoltaïc means this:

peace above me
peace below me
peace all around me

is a difference with:

kill war kill war kill war
kill war kill war kill
war kill war kill war kill
war kill war kill war

I think this creates a (perhaps minor?) difference in environment and cet,...nèh?

Now im REALLY confused

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

this to step up with non understanding the self,...
It is not simple because it just happens not to be so simple,...a man has to make an effort to understand.



firestarter (http://www.sciforums.com/f35/s53a808f32d96025f0f840b5513e233a3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6890)

I was under the impression that the provision in the Constitution of the USA for the maintenance of personal firearms was included as a direct result of the war of independance.

The authorities wanted to have a militia ready incase the English returned and the standing army proved ineffectual.

In the current global climate, the US Army is more than capable of holding off the invading hordes.

This begs the question,
"Is it necessary to allow for the individual's possession of firearms?"

We can not know what the future will bring. Perhaps you should go back in the thread and read the words of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution. They said it best as far as why the second amendment gave the people to the right to keep and bear arms and further stated it "shall not be infringed"

What is right for today in a climate of such change will not be what is right tomorrow. The constitution is for all time. Small arms are but a small part of the weapons required to have a force to check the power of the central state. They are only a corner pin of the required arsenal.

The right to keep and bear arms was put in the constitution for 3 reasons. The first was to repel invaders, the second was to cause the central government pause if they decided to change the bargain and take more power from the states, the third was the personal right of self defense.

All 3 have been clearly expressed in the words of the very persons who wrote the constitution.

I just wonder what it is that scares the gun toting portion of the US's population so much that they feel the need to prepare themselves as a provisional army.

Have you that little faith in your country's capabilities?

True, there is the possibility that aggression may not be on an international level, but small-time thugs would have a much more difficult time arming themselves, and so ameliorate the need for personal defense in this context.

The fact that there have been amendments to the US constitution intimates that there is the provision for adaptation of same.

No charter should be so inflexible that it cannot be changed for the better.

Many of us in the US understand the sacrifices that have been made to provide us with our liberties and freedoms.

We the people have fought and died to preserve this living contract to govern ourselves this constitution. This is something that is instilled in many of us at a very early age. We have been taught by our fathers that we must preserve this contract at all costs in order to preserve the freedoms we hold so dear that we have for centuries given our lives to defend it.

What scares us is that fewer and fewer of our children are retaining this understanding and with this shrinking majority we will one day be the minority. Being a minority in the US means you can loose the freedoms by legislation that your fathers have fought and died to preserve.

This is frightening, to watch it slip away as the mass of the population are constantly reprogrammed to accept the changes to the fundamental nature of the contract for self government we have in the constitution.

The founding fathers knew such a day could come by one means or another and that is the reason that the second amendment is so clear.
"The People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That is a very clear sentence and has been interpreted in several supreme court rulings to mean the personal right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter how much leaders in this country have said that the right to bear arms extended only to hunting rifles and target pistols the meaning is rather clearly indicating military arms as well. In the days of the writing of the constitution this distinction was not needed as all fire arms were pretty much the same.

This was the tactic of the Clinton administration. Clinton said many times as they banned the sale of assault weapons that the right to bear arms was not being infringed because we could still have (legitimate weapons) hunting rifles and target pistols in civilian hands but not military style weapons.

Clearly if their is a major difference in the abilities of the constitutional militia and the regular army the militia will loose without a chance.
This is the reason as these tactics were being used the American public went on alert. The sale of the now banned assault weapons and extended magazines went through the roof. In the first year that this restriction was proposed the sale of assault style weapons rose to 1.5 million units in a year from the average of 250,000 units per year. The sale of arsenal sized cashes of ammo rose to nearly 300% of the yearly average for the previous 5 years. The average assault weapon owner also has over 2000 rounds of ammunition to go with their weapons. Right now in the US there are over 50,000,000 military style weapons in civilian hands.

In order for the government to seize such a cache of weapons it would require a civil war. That is of course the intent of having this many weapons in civilian hands. If they try to take them it will mean a civil war and that will only happen if the second amendment is abandoned and thus our freedoms can no longer be guaranteed us force of arms.

Only the ability to make effective war on the central government will ensure that they will comply with the contract for self government. Trust can be abused. Distrust in the central government is at the center of the preservation of our freedoms.

In America it is like this; sure we will hire you for the job of President and Commander of the Armed forces but if you try to take more power than you are allowed by the constitution, such as in a crisis and then you don't want to give back those freedoms once the emergency is over, we will take them back by force if need be. That's the deal, and every President of this most powerful nation on the planet knows that this is in place to keep him in check.

Power Corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one person on the planet has as much political and military power as the President of the United States for the most part. The only way to keep that power in check so the person does not loose their mind and decide to take over the world is if the people of the US themselves can stop him from doing so by revolution.

You should thank God every day that patriots in the US will not allow our president to take absolute power over the US. It insures the safety of the entire world in this way. This thinking is not just in the civilian population in the US. Many in the military think this way as well. They will work with the constitutional militia to retake the government and reestablish the Constitutional Republic if it is required of them.

Of course we pray this will never be required of us. We train and prepare fully hoping the day will never come that we must undertake this mission of self sacrifice but we must be prepared for this possibility just the same.

If you are a loyal subject of the monarchy you simply can not understand this type of thinking of course. It is understandable.

We the people have fought and died to preserve this living contract to govern ourselves this constitution.

Does this mean you were also in the military?


You should thank God every day that patriots in the US will not allow our president to take absolute power over the US.

Doesn't the USA president swear into office on the christian bible? Wuld that make him on god's side? And as a champion of the USA constitution, shouldn't you be supporting a complete separation of church and state? You know, not bringing religion into a political discussion as a factor?

Yes I was in the US military and have an honorable discharge.
All men in my family have military service and many have died over the years in my family.

If the thank God reference offended anyone I apologize

It didn't offend me, I was just curious about your position. On one hand you use the christian god as sort of a factor in determining the freedom of the individual against federal authority, and on the other hand you support the constitution which seems to say that religion should have absolutely no say in politics.

The US system:
President is sworn in on the christian bible.
President is a christian.

USA constitution:
Separation of church and state.

Betavoltaic:
God is on the side of individuals being free from federal oppression.

I'm not saying I disagree with you or anything. I also think the state must be kept from absolute control of the individual. I'm just trying to piece together how it all works.

Originally posted by Fukushi
hehehe,...what are we to do? Take up arms? hehehe: suicide,...
maby better to die like that then to live in a world like this? No : violence never leeds to prosperity,...of the mind. And the NEW WORLD ORDER should know that and also that it's not a good idear to try to control the 'entropy of toughts' that the brain needs in order to improve,...and to adapt to new circumstances: AI and stuff,...

actually the police in our country was even founded for the control of riots,....yes: to keep the peoples under wrap.
Ofcourse there are enough people who don't favor the ruling goverment especially that of the NEW WOLRD ORDER.
I think in this way the use of weaponary is useless,....because we're not only up against an enemy that has no boundaries,...but also has the power to destroy any kind of resistance,...exept: terrorism,...

The modern regime of science has everbody convinced that "order" is the best way to be, and that everything falls into one of the categories of "ordered" or "disordered".

So the hegemonies of our age have used the tool of Order to dominate and control the world, just as previous ages were able to use religion or personality. In fact, our regimes have achieved such an immense control over the arts of control and order, that it would be foolish to oppose them on that front, as you point out.

A chess master will beat a fencing master at chess, but will lose to him at fencing. If you wish to defeat the highest achievement of order and control ever realized by history, you cannot organize to do so. You will never be able to out-organize them. Search for another method.

As you point out, terrorism and cell-based resistance (affinity groups), which are completely un-organized, seem to be highly resistant to organized efforts of eradication. That's why the establishment is trying to hard to demonize terrorism ... because it cannot be beaten by force.

who takes up wich values and straps a bomb around him/herself,....?
With him/her dissapears a whole universe to explore,...a whole life to live,....and by all the heavens of the universe: who knows how many innocent people will lose theirs too?

I agree that intentional suicide isn't the best way to go about things ... there are plenty of ways to die in a conflict without having to do it to yourself.

But at the same time, there are things that I would die for. I would die to defend my family. Everybody dies ... will you die as a hero or a coward? I'm no hero, but I stand up for what I believe in.

So when a US soldier dies in combat, he died "protecting democracy". When a terrorist dies, they propagandize him as "murderer and fanatic". That doesn't make sense ... logic tells me that men are driven to similar extremes by similar circumstances. It would seem to make sense that the US soldier and the terrorist are dying for similar reasons ... defending themselves and their nations.

so : we should not look upon history to take charge of our future,...altough there are lessons to learn,...a man must always adapt him/herself to the circumstances of the time beign.
And the circumstances don't call for armament but for WORLD-WIDE-DISARMAMENT!!!

if you want to make a living out of peace then consider this:
-NO more army's,...
-no more weapons,...
-no more people to send people to their deaths.
-the less weapons circulate troughout the world, the more the use of them will be non-conformant,....and declared as imoral.

So let's say that you completely disarm the world, and create an ethos where the use of violence is wrong. Then when ONE GUY comes along with a gun, and the willingness to use it, he will rule to world. If you create a police force to prevent such eventualities, then the police will rule the world. Let's face it, power corrupts.

I take the opposite tac. Imagine a world in which everybody had a small hydrogen suicide bomb, enough to take themselves out with a city. That would be a world with no angry people ... because angry people would blow themselves up.

You would then be loathe to call anybody names, or cut them off in traffic, or suppress them in any way, because ... if they are having a "bad day" ... they are going to take themselves out and you with them.

No more bullies, no more oppression ... we take the monopoly of power away from the government, and eliminate the dominance of the strong over the weak ... not by making everybody weak, but by making everybody strong.

Originally posted by Merlijn
* What alternatives are there than the right to bear arms to secure the right to self-defence?
The use of force and violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.

* What will you do if you would find out that the people have more freedom than they can handle?
That's a typical argument put forth by oppressed peoples and slaves who have experienced relatively little freedom. "Life as a slave is good. We are fed and taken care of. Our master defends us from violence; as long as we obey him."

I believe that the burden of proof is upon YOU to defend why it is that people should be deprived of ANY freedoms of ANY kind, even freedoms which might endanger other people.

Do we owe the fact that we're not a nation governed by martial law to our right to bear arms? Do burglars think twice before entering a home for fear that it's inhabitants might be packing heat? Is it crucial that we arm ourselves against the invasion of a foreign aggressor? The right to bear arms is an ideal borne of the need for defense against foreign rule and oppression. A time when the use of violent force was neccesary to establish a new, independent nation. It's not clear how the ownership of firearms particularly handguns and other more "exotic" weapons are legitimately applicable or neccesary in society today. Regardless of the fact that a gun in a home is more likely to injure one of the inhabitants than a perpetrator, it just doesn't strike me as having any real practical application unless you happen to be a collector or hobbyist of some sort. Someone please inform me why our right to bear arms is essential to our freedom and way of life. I'm open to the possibilities though obviously skeptical.

Originally posted by Adam
If the criminals have guns, then the law-abiding citizens have guns to protect themselves, whon't the criminals then just get armour and bigger guns? And won't there then be simply the same situation but with more guns around?
And if you eliminate guns, wouldn't it be the same situation but with fewer guns around?

If owning a gun is criminal, then only criminals will own guns. Doh! Except for the police of course! THEY must have access to guns to fight against gun-toting criminals (including citizen-criminals who's only crime is owning a gun, because that's illegal). Oh, and the MILITARY, because the military MUST have guns -- it just wouldn't be an army without them. It would be like playing soccer without a soccer-ball.

Wait a second ... aren't the police and military the forces that most countries use to forcefully oppress their peoples? Oh, I'm sure the citizenry could call for democratic reforms -- right? And the ruling elite will be happy to give them whatever they ask for.

Originally posted by Tyler
I played Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter and every other fighting game under the sun for years. I perfected myself at shooting games, first-person shooters. I am a huge fan of shooting games (though more so a fan of racing/strategy games!). I also was taught by my ex-Royal Navy grandfather (who fought at D-Day, I just found out) how to shoot a shotgun, handgun and 22.

Know why I never got the urge to kill my classmates (even when I was in a suicidal state)? Because my parents raised me to be more of a human being.

Oh and by the way, if you have had extensive military training (and I'm not doubting this, mind you), you would of course have realized by now the HUGE difference in firing a gun and firing a nintendo controller.
I'm afraid that you're wrong on this one. There have been extensive studies, including studies by the military, about the role of video games in desensitization to violence. In fact, the military and police use a form of video game in training simulations ... yet another example of the real world slightly lagging behind the entertainment industry.

Video games MAY or MAY NOT increase the amount of violence that children perpetrate ... that is still under debate.

What is NOT under debate is the desensitization to violence. For example, it is EXTREMELY difficult for a person to point a gun at another person and pull the trigger, knowing that the other person will die.

Now introduce movies where we see people killing without mercy or hesitation almost constantly. Then introduce video games where the player (child or adult) can point a crosshair at a human target, and then "pull the trigger" (sometimes push a button, sometimes a real trigger).

The effect is that you eventually eliminate the basic human response against taking life. Then when faced with a real-life situation when you need to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, it is more likely that your video game conditioning will take over. Military training is largely intended to INTENTIONALLY overcome this natural resistance to killing and replace it with a conditioned response where the idea of "human other" is removed from the decision loop.

But, hell, I LOVE violent video games. I wouldn't have them banned or regulated for all the universe. I also love to play paintball.

Blaming video games.... just parents trying to take the blame off themselves again.
This is where I agree with you COMPLETELY. So if video games are bad for a child's development, why don't the parents do something about it? And I don't mean tell the government to do something about it, I mean like talking to their kids, or paying attention to what their kids do on the computer and what they watch on the TV.

Adam,

Your line under your Avatar says you are from Australia. I am wondering if you also happen to work for the US government. Since every post you do you link in a graphic from publiclibraryofscience.org

This file resides on a federal government research center computer system www.lbl.gov by tying that graphic in every time you post you send the individual IP and other personal identifier information of every user or viewer of the thread to that federal government computer system.

By tying in the time stamp of the posts to the individual IP data thus derived you in essence give a detailed user report of this and every thread you post in using this graphic link to the federal government.

My question is this. Is the fact that you are tying in this graphic pulled off the federal government controlled server intended to send all of our individual IP data and other personal identifier information to the central federal authority?

One further question. If this is your intent is your being in this forum for the purpose of information collection for the intelligence services of the US government?

I just wonder about things like this.

If you are honestly doing this without any understanding of how this information might be used for the collection of intelligence information then I apologize for having ask the question.

CutterShane


The modern regime of science has everbody convinced that "order" is the best way to be...

WTF are you smoking?!


And if you eliminate guns, wouldn't it be the same situation but with fewer guns around?

Absolutely. Fewer guns = fewer gun-related deaths. Very simple. Fewer dead or seriously wounded people is a good thing.


Wait a second ... aren't the police and military the forces that most countries use to forcefully oppress their peoples?

Actually, no. More countries rule by civlian consenus than by government tyrrany.

Betavoltaic

Yes, I am Australian. No, I do not work for the USA government, nor have I ever.

The Public Library Of Science was sarted by science writers from various magazines. They were basically fed up with the idea that only people who could afford subscriptions could gain access to science news. So they established the PLOS. Free science reports and such. As you can see by the IP address below, they seem to be on completely different servers. You'll also note that the image I use as the link resides on the PLOS server, not the LBL server.

www.lbl.gov = 128.3.7.51
www.publiclibraryofscience.org = 131.243.56.46
http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/images/plos_sup_xs.gif

Now, if you want to know about your government getting IP addresses and such, well, tricks like that are simply not necessary. All they need do is install in the various ISPs some rather nifty packet sniffers, to see who is doing what and when. View the ISP connection logs, watch your packet sniffers to see what people are sending, et cetera.

Another thing. Such reports of activities by all sciforums users would have to come from the sciforums server to be any good. I sometimes go a week or more without using the internet. How could I possibly warn the USA government about possible threats in time? No. Without my constant presense, or at least the constant watch of my own computer over the sciforums server, such reports would have to come from software based on the sciforums server. And I doubt very much Porfiry allows that. (BTW: No, my computer is not that good, it's a crappy old AMD-200.) If not me, and not Porfiry, then I would, if I was the USA government, simply place sniffers on the closest server to Porfiry's, his ISP or whatever junction is nearest.


Is the fact that you are tying in this graphic pulled off the federal government controlled server intended to send all of our individual IP data and other personal identifier information to the central federal authority?

No.


If this is your intent is your being in this forum for the purpose of information collection for the intelligence services of the US government?

Again, no. I was never very impressed with the USA's intelligence community anyway. Sure, they can get any info they want, but big deal. They just aren't my sort of people.

*Xev swats at a black helicopter*

If 'Big Brother is Watching Me' I may as well seize the oppertunity:

2+2=4!

Sorry. What I really want to say is:

JOHN ASHCROFT IS A BLOODY FOOL!

^Ignore the above hyjack of thread. Carry on.

Betavoltaic

Did you actually read what I posted? Check out those IP addresses for yourself.

As for using your "trusted server", how do we know you're not trying to get me to use that to gather information through some trick on your "trusted server"? :p

Originally posted by Adam
Absolutely. Fewer guns = fewer gun-related deaths. Very simple. Fewer dead or seriously wounded people is a good thing.
Fabulous. That way we can get back to good-old-fashioned knife-related deaths, poison-related deaths, and my personal favorite, people who get beaten to death.

I wonder what it is about gun-related death that is so much worse than, say, starvation, bombing, drunk-driving accidents, or the billions of other things that are more worthy of human attention and resolution. Especially when you consider that the majority of gun deaths, BY FAR, are caused by military or para-military personnel, not civilians.

Actually, no. More countries rule by civlian consenus than by government tyrrany.
A tyrannical government created by civilian consensus? Doesn't make sense. Every tyrannical government I've ever heard of had a well-developed military to back it up. Even if they use propaganda and other pacification techniques (like the US) there are still generally a bunch of bombs and guns.

When civilians are given power to rule, it generally doesn't result in a tyrannical government. I'm open to looking at evidence to the contrary, if you have any.

CutterShane

I can only assume you didn't actually read my earlier post. For your benefit, here it is again:


Actually, no. More countries rule by civlian consenus than by government tyrrany.

Now, to make it easy, plain as day. One on hand (A) you have countries ruled by civilian consensus. On the other hand (B) you have countries ruled by armed tyrrany. A>B, or the first type is greater than the second type. Stated in English: More countries rule by civilian consensus than by govenment tyranny. Countries in which the government rules by force of arms are in the minority. Countries ruled by civilian consent are in the majority. I've said that many different ways now, I hope you get it.

Yes, if there were no guns, people would go back to using knives and sticks. But guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people. Why make it easy? Why not reduce the number of deaths by simply making it harder for people to kill each other?

Betavoltaic

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that the picture in my signature draws from a USA government server. I have demonstrated to you quite clearly that www.lbl.gov and www.publiclibraryofscience.org are on different servers, and that the picture comes from the PLOS server. So, care to explain?

Originally posted by Adam
Now, to make it easy, plain as day. One on hand (A) you have countries ruled by civilian consensus. On the other hand (B) you have countries ruled by armed tyrrany. A>B, or the first type is greater than the second type. Stated in English: More countries rule by civilian consensus than by govenment tyranny. Countries in which the government rules by force of arms are in the minority. Countries ruled by civilian consent are in the majority. I've said that many different ways now, I hope you get it.
I'm not talking about non-tyrannical governments. I'm talking about tyrannical governments that deprive their citizenry of any means of resistance or ability to overthrow the government.

It seems rather stupid to talk about problems in Paradise. There are no problems in Paradise. That's why it's called Paradise ... because it's a paradise with no problems.

So instead, why don't we talk about governments that use overwhelming military might to enforce their will on the rest of the planet, governments that are ranked among the worst offenders of civil liberties because of police brutality against their own civilian population, governments that engage in massive, unabashed propaganda wars to promote their forgone policy decisions instead of allowing "civilian consensus" to have a voice, and governments that pretend to be able to provide the solutions to all the world's problems when (according to your argument) they have out-of-control violence problems at home.

Get it?

Originally posted by betavoltaic

In America it is like this; sure we will hire you for the job of President and Commander of the Armed forces but if you try to take more power than you are allowed by the constitution, such as in a crisis and then you don't want to give back those freedoms once the emergency is over, we will take them back by force if need be. That's the deal, and every President of this most powerful nation on the planet knows that this is in place to keep him in check.




More power than you're allowed in a crisis? This sounds an awful lot like the Emergency Act which allowed Hitler to consolidate his power. You really think that the US could go the same way as Nazi Germany?

What a low opinion of your country you have.

Many other countries have legal and chartorial provisions to prevent a dictatorship arising from their democracy.

The democratic process is there to prevent psychotic megalomaniacs from coming to any office of import.
Is it that easy for due selection to break down?

Does MI5/6 (or your equivalent) not vet polititians?

Originally posted by betavoltaic
If you are a loyal subject of the monarchy you simply can not understand this type of thinking of course. It is understandable.

I should point out also that you appear to harbour a misconception WRT the state of the Monarchy.
The head of the British State has no power.

There are increasing numbers who feel that the monarchy is little more than a tourist attraction for people who want to see Kings, Queens and real castles.

There are many who lose no love to Queen Elizabeth.
Infact, there aren't really any subjects left (in the classical sense).

I'm still wondering how Betavoltaic got the idea that PLOS is run off a secret evil spying CIA server. I wonder if you are referring to the first set of numbers in the IP or something. If so, I would like to point out that both www.federal.gov.au and www.mcdonalds.com.au begin with 203.

I would like to point out that both www.federal.gov.au and www.mcdonalds.com.au begin with 203.
Oh. My. God!

You mean that McDonalds is a secret front for the Australian Gvt?!?

ESP

Yep. And each time you eat a McChunders burger, it carries a tiny electronic bug into your guts, and it burrows through the intestinal wall and attaches itself to your spine, and broadcasts a signal to let the government know what you're thinking...

I disscussed this in other threads and I have no intention of doing so again,...

Betavoltaïc is right about many things altough I not intent to agree on evrything,...

Let me explain: this world is governed by groups of intrests: the lobby's: industrial lobby's Nuclear lobby's ect,...
they indeed take 'us' (the people) where they want to go,...like slaves they command 'us' at a wink of an eye,...in the direction of MORE profit,...
Do you really think that we live in a democratic world? or state for that matter?
Let me open your eyes : DEMOCRASY: is a system ,...ruled by the people (in wich case: is represented by a few who have their own agenda) FOR that verry same people: now how come (you think) that the part on "FOR the people" is taken?
You really think that the system is there for the people that we all are? You're maby convinced by a set of toughts that is implemented on how you SHOULD think,...but give it a tought for a year or 25,....then we'll see,...I'm patient,...are you?

No,...it's not a democrasy that we live in,...it's an economic system in wich you can 'buy' yourself a position.
And the better you are in killing other bussinesses,...the greater your own company grows,...what you say? anti-monopoly trust? hahaha don't make me laugh again,...: it's clear that a lot of bussinesses are owned by the same state for that matter,...what you say? privatisation? hahaha you're really funny: that is only a strategic bussiness move to protect the bussiness itself from direct influence,...but is still ruled by the same trustees,...if not: then the board of direction is changed in order to cover up the trace wich leads back to it's origin of bussiness: being the bussiness of the intrest of the state,...
what you say? free-trade? hahaha,...now I'm falling of my chair: then why is it that all this benificial inventions are beign patented,...so that it will STAY in the hands of the powerfull: and NOT the people that surely could use anything that improves life and it's standards. And PLEASE just take my word for it: I'm not going to elaborate about anti-globalism here,...

Again and again you see that the people are not intended to grow,...their minds,...nor their wallets,...nor their families,...they are clearly ruled by hirarchy,..and classes,...wich in turn is analised by various Dr. and Proffessors in antropology as well as filosophy and other : as FASCHISTIC!!!

Now that must be clearly seen by all people,...

I don't understand that there are still people buying that shit there trying to make evryone believe in some sort of a concept of democrasy,...? hahaha don't make me laugh !!!

It's a joke in your town just like 911. P.E.nr.1remember?
There is substancial evidence enough to draw the conclusion that even THAT was staged,...how stupidious or horrific that may sound,...

No: I'm not a conspiracy theorist altough that's what you would be led to believe to describe me for the elaboration on a certain vieuw-point that I'm giving,...wich is a 'vieuw-point' and has nothing to do with what or who I am,...

Before I talked about Mind control and how it influences all of the lives of the people in this world.
But sofar only a few have begun to open their eyes,...

I know it must be verry hard on you all to believe in a horror,...
but believe me when I say to you: reality IS horror.
Exept when you don't walk out of line that is: so doing what your being told to do: and especially : don't ask questions and don't be sceptic on the set of values and rules wich they equipped you with.

In this way : I can state that there are a lot of things that I saw and that I can't even begin to explain unless there is real interest,...
because you wouldn't believe the shit that our fathers grand-fathers and great-grand-for-fathers went trough just to be seduced by their feelings of love that eventually created 'us' 'their' children their offspring.

This world is partially (verry big part) ruled by patterns of existence in wich you have to stay astray but yet to devellop some sort of a position towards 'it' (life).

That is not reached in my opinion by any state on this world by systems that are socalled : 'democratic' ,...
I would even go that far to state that it's all an pretty hypocritical situation that people are in,...and as long as there is some bussiness doing profit on the heads of other people: it's clear that it's UNFAIR trade,...

Thx
:bugeye:

With regards to the previous diatribe...
Adam... esp... I hope you are happy now. http://www.xecu.net/goofyfish/__public/Emoticons/smiley_lol2.gif

Peace.

Originally posted by Fukushi
It's a joke in your town just like 911. P.E.nr.1remember?
There is substancial evidence enough to draw the conclusion that even THAT was staged,...I'm not following the P.E.nr.1 reference.
But as far as the "substantial evidence" statement, what do you present?

Peace.

Look for yourself: I'm not willing to be talked into another
-yes/no that's not truth/it is truth , there's no evidence/there is evidince edition of your scepticism Goofyfish,...

No tricks here,...

"World War Three will be a guerilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation."
-- Marshall McLuhan

In other words, you have no credible evidence;
no evidence that stands up to scrutiny by others.

We should just believe whatever you say. I understand.

Peace.

--- Edit: spelling ---

Can i just say that the queen can only sack the PM and the goverment at the recomedation of the govener genral. The queen can only sack the Govener genral at the request of the PM. That is the ONLY power she has (personaly i want a republic but thats beside the point)

Now we have only 2 levels of goverment (fedral that is) to your 3

The house of reps (which the PM MUST be a member)
The Senart (or the house of review)

Bills are made in the house of reps
Then they are checked by teh senart

The house of reps is domanated by the Labor and Libral party (the two main partys)

The senart is dominated by MINOR partys who hold the balance of power

This means that the senart is NOT just a rubber stamp

THIS is how we are protected.

The same system is copied in the states (like Victoria)

The other protection is the High court

This deals mainly with constitutional matters

If a Law is felt to breach the consitution it can be challanged (by ANYONE) in the High court

No drake equasion here pall:



Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful.

Your technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol> the socalled lack of proof in this case.
The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.



Thx
:bugeye:

When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas and values we learned at home, at school, and/or in church. Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important subject. This lowers our 'sales resistance' and makes us far less suspicious than we ought to be when the speaker begins telling us the things 'the United States (or any other power for that matter) must do to preserve democracy (hypocrasy) and Freedom (to stay in power).'

As generally understood, propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups...
with offcourse use of the media,...now why would a democrasy need propaganda for nèh?
Because people are to swallow everyting 'they' come up with, without questioning? And why should a serious question need to be critisised and be dismissed as clearly the questioning itself bears no truth or proof,...

"It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions.

I recon your other opinion,...but you do not recon mine,...a pitty.

Originally posted by esp
What a low opinion of your country you have.
You have to identify problem areas before you can improve them. I suppose you recommend that we simply accept anything negative in our society, simply to avoid being negative?

Many other countries have legal and chartorial provisions to prevent a dictatorship arising from their democracy.
I don't think that anybody seriously believes that a dictatorship will arise from a democracy. You're trying to erect a straw man.

The truth of the matter is that what we now accept as "democracy" around the world is actually a plutocracy, or rule by the rich.

Not only are rich people rich, but they are smart, and they have a lot of resources at their disposal. And I believe it is generally accepted that they aren't the most moral of people. What, then, do you think it is that protects poor (or not-rich) people from rich people? The government? Does the government work for the people against the rich, or for the rich against the people?

If you believe that the government works for the poor against the rich, then that is communism. McCarthyism and massive propaganda pretty well took care of that ... nobody even really understands what communism is about, these days. So we can eliminate that out of the picture.

John Dewey said that government is the shadow cast over society by big business. I believe that is a very accurate depiction of the industrial world. Not only does that distract our attention away from the true centers of power, like big corporate conglomerates, but you can actually blame the poor for their own plight, ostensibly because they aren't electing the right people.

The democratic process is there to prevent psychotic megalomaniacs from coming to any office of import.
Is it that easy for due selection to break down?
Actually, the purpose of democracy is to guarantee equality of outcome. That is, to guarantee that everybody winds up with the same access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see that happening anywhere.

Though America has re-defined democracy to mean that everybody starts out with the same access to these things, and then where they wind up is up to them. But even this isn't true, as is evident from things like inheritance, schooling, racism, and the many other barriers between the classes.

There are increasing numbers who feel that the monarchy is little more than a tourist attraction for people who want to see Kings, Queens and real castles.
Are you from a monarchic country? If so, it would appear that you have a pretty low opinion of your own country. Or you might be speaking out of typical American ignorance and prejudice.

I recommend that we look at monarchy as symbolic. A group of people who's "job" is to embody nobility. Whether they do a good job of that or not, I'm not qualified to say.

Originally posted by Fukushi
As generally understood, propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups...
with offcourse use of the media,...now why would a democrasy need propaganda for nèh?
Here's some scary information for you:

In the early 20th Century, a man named Edward Bernays wrote a book called "Propaganda" (propaganda wasn't a dirty word back then ... it only obtained infamy after Hitler realized its importance during WWII ... the US learned a lot about propaganda from Hitler).

In this book, Bernays claimed that not only is propaganda acceptable in a democratic society, but that propaganda is essential to a working democracy.

The very idea horrifies me ... but bear with me ...

The basic idea is that the masses are generally unintelligent and unmotivated. However, it must be recognized that the public has a great deal of power, power that is largely untapped because it has no focus or direction. Public power can express itself positively, through cooperation in/with the government, or negatively through revolution and civil disobedience.

So that's the role of the government ... to give that power focus and direction. To make people feel that they are working and paying taxes for a good reason, even when those reasons aren't their own personal reasons.

So what you wind up with are the "wise" and "enlightened" statesmen on the hill, and they debate and decide what is the best thing to do. Then they set about the task of convincing the public, as well, that what they decide to do is the right thing to do, through the machinery of propaganda.

So the basic idea (and again, I disagree in the strongest possible terms) is that without propaganda we would not have a democracy ... we would have a "mobocracy" where decisions are made by the unintelligent and uninformed masses.

For anybody that disagrees with me, this is all well-documented and very forthright (at least at the outset ... it has become less honest and open with time). Just do a little research and, in particular, read Bernay's book "Propaganda" ... if you can find it. It's a tough one to get your hands on, for obvious reasons. But it's out there.