RE: Guns Save Lives! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 1:56:16 PM)

*groooooannnn*



mnottertail -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 2:06:22 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9eJNEVrojw

Wayne LaPierre and John Lennon



LadyEllen -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 2:41:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the police work for and enforce the above noted agencies and have nothing to do with enforcing law.

I mean I hope we agree that government cannot make "Law"

Administrations cannot make "Law"

nor can management make "Law"

they can only make policy, code et al

I am suprised he suckered you on that.


Words fail me.

The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding so basic that its hard to know where to begin in correcting it, since its by no means assured that an explanation using even the simplest terms will be comprehended.

In its most basic form though, the misunderstanding appears to be one arising from a perception of alienation from the rest of society such that almost everything arising from society that has influence on the individual is seen as an intrusion and an attack.

Consequentially the individual comes to fear and hate all agencies of society and to project onto them at best a sense of distrust by which only conspiracy theories provide satisfactory explanation in the context of such preconceptions, or at worst a need to show outright hostility as a means of satisfying the psychic need for self preservation.
 
There is no question that such individuals must be maladjusted to society, for they live under a severe and enduring misconception about society. Whether any effective corrective treatment might be possible is in doubt, since any attempt to rectify the source of the problem will be strongly resisted and merely be felt to support and reinforce the misconception. Treatment is therefore only recommended where the problem presents a clear and present danger to the individual or others in its effects.

E



Moonhead -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 2:46:34 PM)

I think you'll find the technical terms for such idiots used to be "sociopaths", Lady Ellen. Not sure what they're called now: "antisocial personality disorder" or some such bollocks.



LadyEllen -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 2:53:55 PM)

Indeed MH, but such descriptions carry very negative connotations and fail to explain adequately the context of these particular circumstances, that we see on these boards time and again - and not merely from one source.

I do not expect what I hope is a clear exposition of the whys and wherefores of the behaviours of these sources to in any way affect those so afflicted, for it is certain to be viewed as yet another threat or attack on them, but rather I trust that by explaining what is behind it to provide guidance to others in how to deal with them, in the understanding that they are not so much evil, stupid or obstinate, but rather suffering from a social adjustment issue that occasions such an impression here and is not so much a problem for the rest of us unless it is transposed into physical expressions.

E



Real0ne -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 3:05:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the police work for and enforce the above noted agencies and have nothing to do with enforcing law.

I mean I hope we agree that government cannot make "Law"

Administrations cannot make "Law"

nor can management make "Law"

they can only make policy, code et al

I am suprised he suckered you on that.


Words fail me.

The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding so basic that its hard to know where to begin in correcting it, since its by no means assured that an explanation using even the simplest terms will be comprehended.

In its most basic form though, the misunderstanding appears to be one arising from a perception of alienation from the rest of society such that almost everything arising from society that has influence on the individual is seen as an intrusion and an attack.

Consequentially the individual comes to fear and hate all agencies of society and to project onto them at best a sense of distrust by which only conspiracy theories provide satisfactory explanation in the context of such preconceptions, or at worst a need to show outright hostility as a means of satisfying the psychic need for self preservation.
 
There is no question that such individuals must be maladjusted to society, for they live under a severe and enduring misconception about society. Whether any effective corrective treatment might be possible is in doubt, since any attempt to rectify the source of the problem will be strongly resisted and merely be felt to support and reinforce the misconception. Treatment is therefore only recommended where the problem presents a clear and present danger to the individual or others in its effects.

E



you know what the problem is with most attorneys today?  They are great with form and they suck at law.  If they did not have a judge in collusion with them most cases would go down in flames.

I would have guessed that you knew the difference between color of law, (code), and law.

Oh well.



Moonhead -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 3:09:03 PM)

You don't. Expecting anybody else to is a bit of a cheek.



LadyEllen -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 3:24:05 PM)

At the risk of again wasting hours of my time by engaging you RO, it would appear that you misunderstand the idea of "color of law" and wish to apply it to all legislative acts and their application as if the government - as the elected representatives of the people - have no right to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have no right to apply them.

This is clearly not the case, since the people have not only consented but in effect also instructed the government to make such laws and see to it that they are applied, and thus there is a lawful right to make law residing in government and a lawful right residing in the agencies of government to apply it. Indeed, it is because of these lawful rights that there might arise a notion such as acting under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between lawful and unlawful application of the law.

E



Real0ne -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 8:23:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

At the risk of again wasting hours of my time by engaging you RO, it would appear that you misunderstand the idea of "color of law" and wish to apply it to all legislative acts and their application as if the government - as the elected representatives of the people - have no right to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have no right to apply them.

This is clearly not the case, since the people have not only consented but in effect also instructed the government to make such laws and see to it that they are applied, and thus there is a lawful right to make law residing in government and a lawful right residing in the agencies of government to apply it. Indeed, it is because of these lawful rights that there might arise a notion such as acting under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between lawful and unlawful application of the law.

E

corrected:
RO, it would appear that you understand "color of law" and claim it applies to all legislative acts and their application as if the government.    

The elected representatives of the people have been granted the authority to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have been granted the authority to apply them.

This is clearly the case, for the people whom have consented to be ruled and governed by another.   

The people who have consented have waived their rights to self government by authorizing the hive to make such code and enforce it with the power of law and see to it that they are applied to those whom consented to the contract.  

There is lawful authority even though government has no rights to make “colored law” for the consenting that resides in government and a lawful authority residing in the agencies of government to apply it to apply it to all parties under said contract.  

Indeed, it is because of this lawfully granted authority by each contracting-consenting-governed that there might arise a notion such as acting legally under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between fictions, contracts, and organic law, legal and lawful and unlawful application of the color of law under legal.             


this was rather difficult to convert the monarchial version to the republic but I think that shouold get the point across none the less.




Musicmystery -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/5/2010 8:26:22 PM)

Ellen, I think you have to be one of the Bizzarati to understand.



Real0ne -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/6/2010 6:11:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

At the risk of again wasting hours of my time by engaging you RO, it would appear that you misunderstand the idea of "color of law" and wish to apply it to all legislative acts and their application as if the government - as the elected representatives of the people - have no right to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have no right to apply them.

This is clearly not the case, since the people have not only consented but in effect also instructed the government to make such laws and see to it that they are applied, and thus there is a lawful right to make law residing in government and a lawful right residing in the agencies of government to apply it. Indeed, it is because of these lawful rights that there might arise a notion such as acting under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between lawful and unlawful application of the law.

E

corrected:
RO, it would appear that you understand "color of law" and claim it applies to all legislative acts and their application as if the government.    

The elected representatives of the people have been granted the authority to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have been granted the authority to apply them.

This is clearly the case, for the people whom have consented to be ruled and governed by another.   

The people who have consented have waived their rights to self government by authorizing the hive to make such code and enforce it with the power of law and see to it that they are applied to those whom consented to the contract.  

There is lawful authority even though government has no rights to make “colored law” for the consenting that resides in government and a lawful authority residing in the agencies of government to apply it to apply it to all parties under said contract.  

Indeed, it is because of this lawfully granted authority by each contracting-consenting-governed that there might arise a notion such as acting legally under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between fictions, contracts, and organic law, legal and lawful and unlawful application of the color of law under legal.             


this was rather difficult to convert the monarchial version to the republic but I think that shouold get the point across none the less.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ellen, I think you have to be one of the Bizzarati to understand.


may want to take another look.

This clearly points out the diiference between the mindset of those under a monarchy and those in a sovereign republic.



LadyEllen -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/6/2010 7:49:51 AM)

You do realise RO, that the Queen doesnt rule at all, here or anywhere else? That she is purely a figurehead as head of state and that we are a Parliamentary democracy wherein we vote to elect representatives who then form a government and implement policy including by way of legislation, and that this situation has obtained for the last few centuries, evolving to the point where everyone over 18 may vote?

You may wish to examine three key periods of change - the first being the English Civil War of the 1640s through to 1651, the second being the Restoration of the Stuart King Charles II and the third being the Glorious Revolution of 1689. By the close of the 17th century, the position and powers of the monarch were utterly changed from those you appear to believe still apply.

The situation has evolved ever since, to the point where there is a small but significant proportion of the population who move for a republic here with a president rather than a monarch. If the situation were anything like what you appear to believe, these people should be imprisoned for treason and guess what, theyre not, because despite some notable differences, the situation here is not too different to the situation there - which is perhaps hardly any wonder given that the changes here of the 17th century fed into and were inspired by the same forces that fed into and inspired the creation of the US.

Are things perfect in your country or ours? No. And from what I hear on here the problems correspond quite well and have the same sources and symptoms in both countries - political corruption and ineptitude, corporate manipulations and general apathy and particular anger being perhaps the core. We may well be entering another period like the 17th century where great socio-political change is inevitable.

Perhaps you may be able to be part of that, but not if you continue with such ignorant, and obstinately ignorant at that, spoutings such as you produce here. If random persons on the internet are not convinced by and in fact rip apart your posts, how much chance do you feel you should have in convincing the large numbers of people you should need to effect the changes you feel are necessary?

E



Termyn8or -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/6/2010 8:18:01 AM)

FR

First of all :

"And one time, when a big account threatened to pull out, I showed them my report---with bulleted lists.

They signed the renewal and went out for shots."

Mm, can I use that in lyrics ? I think it's catchy.

Anyway, the "color of law" has been defined in the law, and the law itself meets it's own definition. This has won a few court cases here and there. It is rarely used because very few people can, let alone know how. But the distinction is made. It is within the conspiracy statutes actually, I'll find it if pressed. The actual intent of it was probably to prevent people from turning roads into pikes like in feudal Europe, if a public road crossed their private property, but the words still stand.

In many cases, among them Marbury v Madison, a law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. This tenet seems to stand. For example you have the right to life, therefore statutes defining the specific penalties for taking a human life are defined and are valid. You have the right to freedom of expression, which is why they are not coming from Germany to put me in a cell with Ernst Zundel, which is a prima facie case of the difference between a natural born Citizen and others in this country, and/or Canada. You have the right to privacy in your personal papers and posessions, thus the [former] need for search warrants.

Most people fail to realize, when they follow changes in current "law" which is actually code, is that the law still exists. If not challenged it is still illegal to French kiss in West Virginia, unless and until challenged. Much of this code and statute goes unchallenged because people get the attitude that "what they say goes" due to a life of indoctrination.

We have the right to own guns, and keep them, This was surprisingly held up by the supreme court not so long ago, but it is a milestone IMO. If the rest of the world sees us as barbaric because it is more common for the commoner to own killing machines so be it. Our ancestors came here to get away from people like that, and to a greater degree the government to which they subject themselves. (pun intended)

Or as John Belushi put it "We have been kicked out of all the good countries". Take your pick. And pry my dead cold fingers from it.

T



Real0ne -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/7/2010 8:35:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

You do realise RO, that the Queen doesnt rule at all, here or anywhere else?

Of course not the trustees take care of that :)

That she is purely a figurehead as head of state and that we are a Parliamentary democracy wherein we vote to elect representatives who then form a government and implement policy including by way of legislation, and that this situation has obtained for the last few centuries, evolving to the point where everyone over 18 may vote?

Again that is a misnomer because the queen has never

There is the catch.  She still retains her power and that will never change. relinquished the power, just chooses not to exercize it.

You may wish to examine three key periods of change - the first being the English Civil War of the 1640s through to 1651, the second being the Restoration of the Stuart King Charles II and the third being the Glorious Revolution of 1689. By the close of the 17th century, the position and powers of the monarch were utterly changed from those you appear to believe still apply.

The situation has evolved ever since, to the point where there is a small but significant proportion of the population who move for a republic here with a president rather than a monarch.

A monarch has more power than a president as a president is under a monarch. 

Presidents are the creation of the monarch to be the executor of the corporation(s) created by the monarch so that will never happen.

If the situation were anything like what you appear to believe, these people should be imprisoned for treason and guess what, theyre not, because despite some notable differences, the situation here is not too different to the situation there - which is perhaps hardly any wonder given that the changes here of the 17th century fed into and were inspired by the same forces that fed into and inspired the creation of the US.

Its just like the magna charta....if the king wants to live without a revolt every 6 months they better accomondate the people.  Precisely they way its done here with patriots that get tossed in jail for reading the irs code and making the foolish mistake to think the courts will uphold the law they pick away at the fringes while the propagandist bash them relentlessly so the people justify it or become complacent.  You know psyterrorism against the republic. That way the king looks ok and only has to deal with the fringes rather than the population at large.

Are things perfect in your country or ours? No. And from what I hear on here the problems correspond quite well and have the same sources and symptoms in both countries - political corruption and ineptitude, corporate manipulations and general apathy and particular anger being perhaps the core. We may well be entering another period like the 17th century where great socio-political change is inevitable.

Its like I told you some time ago, that what ever direction motha englang goes with the law is here in 20 years sometimes less depending on how worried they are about an uprsing.

Perhaps you may be able to be part of that, but not if you continue with such ignorant, and obstinately ignorant at that, spoutings such as you produce here. If random persons on the internet are not convinced by and in fact rip apart your posts, how much chance do you feel you should have in convincing the large numbers of people you should need to effect the changes you feel are necessary?

E


Well nice if that were true for you but they dont, they occasionally make a point here and there but I have yet to see anyone remotely approach "ripping" up anything I post.

The problem here is that debate here is all about creative conflation, deference, manipulation, transference and a host of other forms of bullshit that have nothing to do with getting to the truth, just winning the bitchfest.  Take the holocaust as an example.  No one believes picture proofs just what public pubis teach taught them as if there were not much worse in the jap death marches, stalin gengu kahn etc etc etc.  but there is big business at stake.  So there you got it.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/7/2010 9:01:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
You have the right to freedom of expression, which is why they are not coming from Germany to put me in a cell with Ernst Zundel, which is a prima facie case of the difference between a natural born Citizen and others in this country, and/or Canada.


The Zundel case is particularly fascinating. However, as I understand it, had he managed to maintain his visa (or one of his marriages) he would never have been deported back to Germany. It seems to me like he was pretty much daring them to come after him.



LadyEllen -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/8/2010 4:48:48 AM)

Again. The Queen is a figurehead with no actual power, and this as a result of the changes that took place over the course of the 17th century. The monarchy exists today only because it was invited back in (Charles II) in a changed constitutional position which was weakened still further a few decades later (William of Orange, Glorious Revolution, Bill Of Rights).

E



Termyn8or -> RE: Guns Save Lives! (3/8/2010 12:49:30 PM)

"The Zundel case is particularly fascinating"

You can say that again. Everything got twisted around and he never hurt anyone. He was taken to a cell in Germany for reporting, or wait, just allowing some "truth" to be reported in his name that collided with their "truth". It cost more money to get him in that cell than it cost to build the whole fucking prison, and buddy get me now IT WAS MEANT TO SET AN EXAMPLE.

The Germans are a bright sort, and they do well questioning, therefore to enforce the doctrine that fuels the holocaust machine, they need the color of law. I have a gun and could easily build a jail cell so I could just as easily operate under the color of law. Law is begot from power. Now all these helpless dead motherfuckers who were so poor and downtrodden by their neighbors who were HATERS had the government come and take their goodies away, like their gold teeth and theitr Swiss bank accounts in a country where is took a wheelbarrel full of money to buy a postage stamp. Now their ex friend all the sudden wanted to kill them for whatever reason.

I told yall I was pulling out the stops.

Even my Dad said that Hitler did Poland a big favor, and he said that after hearing from people who were REALLY THERE AT THE TIME ! I am not kidding. That is what he said.

I don't hate, it is a waste of time but I will callem as I seeum. Jews are on average twice as smart as the sheeple, but they are not twice as smart as me. I know their way and I know my own. I used to call my own Uncle Glenn a Jew, but that was in the colloquial sense of course, but how did tht sense arrive ? They are good at business and handling affairs of importance. The dumb ones are sent into US politics, where all they have to do is know how to read.

Think I am kidding ? Keep an eye on world events. I have been proven right hundreds of times, including those times before I ever got on the internet. You can ask my friends and family personally, I can arrainge that.

In short, the future is thus. We will fuck with Iran, Russia will be pissed and will retaliate by fucking up our shipping to and fro that region. Obama will go speak to Putin, yes Vladmir Putin, who is one of the few competent leaders in the world. He might learn a thing or two. One of which might be that the US is not invincable. Maybe he will be given a tour of Russia's top military installations, as Carter walked the Chinese through our's, not so many years ago.

What happens after that is up in the air, it could be another cold war to stimulate the economy, plunging us into deeper debt. Yes we won the first cold war. but only because we had a bigger credit card.

If anyone doesn't like the truth, might I suggest the ignore button.

And the truth be known, if I were in their position I would probably play the game just about the same way. I can't say I wouldn't. Right now it's like a game of chess, your opponent has all his pieces and you have lost both of your rooks and one bishop. Oh, and a few pawns by the way.

Gonna take a bit of brainpower to win this one eh ?

T



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625